An above-knee compression garment does not improve passive knee joint position sense in healthy adults

Abstract

We determined the effects of wearing an above-knee compression garment (CG) on knee joint position sense. Healthy young adults (n = 24, age = 27.46 ± 4.65 years) performed a passive knee position-matching task on an isokinetic dynamometer with each leg separately. We determined the magnitude of compression by measuring anatomical thigh cross sectional area (CSA) in standing using magnetic resonance imaging. Wearing the CG compressed CSA by 2% (t = 2.91, p = 0.010, Cohen’s d = 0.68). Repeated measures ANOVA (rANOVA) with three repetition factors (condition: CG, no CG; leg: right dominant, left non-dominant; and target angles: 30°, 45°, 60°) revealed an effect of angles (p < 0.001), where the matching of knee joint position was more accurate at 60° compared to 30° and 45° (p < 0.001). However, CG did not reduce passive joint position sense errors. In fact, joint position error was less without CG (p = 0.014). In conclusion, while CG does compress the thigh it does not afford the purported benefits for proprioception as measured by a target-matching task in the present study.

A below-knee compression garment reduces fatigue-induced strength loss but not knee joint position sense errors

“…In contrast to the hypothesis, participants had less constant JPS errors in more extended vs. flexed positions (75-61°: − 4.6 ± 3.6°, 60-50°: − 4.2 ± 4.3°, 50-25°: − 2.9 ± 4.2°), which is in contrast with a previous study (Negyesi et al 2018) showing less JPS errors at 60° compared to 30° and 45° of knee flexion with and without the application of an above-knee CG. It is possible that in this more flexed knee position compared with 30° and 45°, the quadriceps was more stretched, resulting in greater background Ia discharge and feedback, reducing the error.…”

“…2) that implies knowledge of the starting position and movement's length for accuracy. This setup excludes the possibility that an increase in the ROM increases the cognitive difficulty of the task, resulting in greater JPS errors in more extended knee joint positions (Negyesi et al 2018). Indeed, we found less absolute repositioning error at 32° (4.6 ± 2.3°) as compared to 16° (5.7 ± 3.1°) ROM, but the variability of the errors became greater at 32° (3.8 ± 1.5°) vs. 16° (3.3 ± 1.4°) ROM.…”

“…We hypothesized that CG reduces the fatigue-induced deterioration in JPS. Moreover, JPS seems to be more accurate in more flexed knee positions (Negyesi et al 2018) probably due to the greater background Ia discharge and feedback in this more stretched quadriceps position. It is, however, also possible that the short path and time from the starting position of 90° required participants to explore the target in a narrower range, reducing the probability for error.…”

“…It is also possible that the conflicting data between studies are related to the location of where along the leg CG modulates afferent input. While above-knee CG failed to reduce passive (Negyesi et al 2018) or active (Zhang et al 2019) target-matching errors, CGs applied over the knee joint can improve JPS by reducing inter-trial variability (Zhang et al 2019). Such favorable effects may be related to an augmented sense of movement due to skin stretching when CG covers the knee (Collins and Prochazka 1996).…”

“…However, it is difficult to assess changes in JPS if the targetmatching task is simple and JPS error is low at baseline. While not entirely clear, it seems that kinesthetic movement reproduction (Marini et al 2018), which implies knowledge of the starting position and movement path for accuracy, as a proxy for JPS might be more sensitive than target matching tasks with constant initial knee angles (Ghai et al 2018;Negyesi et al 2018) to determine the effects of interventions and CGs on JPS in healthy humans.…”