Abnormalities in the elbow range of motion (ROM) can be subtle; therefore, it is important that the examiner can compare findings with reliable reference values, matching the patients’ characteristics. Primarily, we aimed to provide normative values for the elbow ROM in subpopulations based on age, sex, dominance and body mass index (BMI). The secondary objective was to determine intra- and inter-rater reliability.
Methods
aROM (active range of motion) and pROM (passive range of motion) were measured bilaterally in healthy adults using a universal goniometer. The influence of factors affecting the ROM was calculated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. In two samples of subjects, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were determined.
Results
The study population (n = 352) consisted of 47.2% male and 52.8% female subjects. For aROM (dominant hand), mean flexion was 146°, extension –2°, pronation 80° and supination 87°. Male subjects had smaller ROM compared to females (p < 0.001). Differences between dominant and nondominant hand were less than one degree. pROMs were 3° to 5° larger than aROMs (p < 0.001). Intra- and inter-rater reliability was good.
Conclusions
Elbow ROM is influenced by age, sex and BMI. In the general population, the ROM of the uninjured side can serve as a reference in case of an injured elbow.
SoucieJMWangCForsythAet al.Range of motion measurements: reference values and a database for comparison studies. Haemophilia2011; 17: 500–507.
2.
WrightRWSteger-MayKWasserlaufBLO'NealMEWeinbergBWPalettaGA. Elbow range of motion in professional baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med2006; 34: 190–193.
3.
FieselerGMolitorTIrlenbuschLet al.Intrarater reliability of goniometry and hand-held dynamometry for shoulder and elbow examinations in female team handball athletes and asymptomatic volunteers. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2015; 135: 1719–1726.
4.
GunalIKoseNErdoganOGokturkESeberS. Normal range of motion of the joints of the upper extremity in male subjects, with special reference to side. J Bone Joint Surg Am1996; 78: 1401–1404.
5.
KaragiannopoulosCSitlerMMichlovitzS. Reliability of 2 functional goniometric methods for measuring forearm pronation and supination active range of motion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2003; 33: 523–531.
6.
ChapleauJCanetFPetitYLaflammeGYRouleauDM. Validity of goniometric elbow measurements: comparative study with a radiographic method. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 3134–3140.
7.
MorreyBFAskewLJChaoEY. A biomechanical study of normal functional elbow motion. J Bone Joint Surg Am1981; 63: 872–877.
8.
SardelliMTashjianRZMacWilliamsBA. Functional elbow range of motion for contemporary tasks. J Bone Joint Surg Am2011; 93: 471–477.
9.
RaissPRettigOWolfSLoewMKastenP. [Range of motion of shoulder and elbow in activities of daily life in 3D motion analysis]. Z Orthop Unfall2007; 145: 493–498.
10.
ReinoldMMWilkKEMacrinaLCet al.Changes in shoulder and elbow passive range of motion after pitching in professional baseball players. Am J Sports Med2008; 36: 523–527.
11.
WilkKEMacrinaLCFleisigGSet al.Deficits in glenohumeral passive range of motion increase risk of elbow injury in professional baseball pitchers: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med2014; 42: 2075–2081.
12.
ShanleyERauhMJMichenerLAEllenbeckerTSGarrisonJCThigpenCA. Shoulder range of motion measures as risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in high school softball and baseball players. Am J Sports Med2011; 39: 1997–2006.
13.
SpinnerMKaplanEB. The quadrate ligament of the elbow – its relationship to the stability of the proximal radio-ulnar joint. Acta Orthop Scand1970; 41: 632–647.
14.
RothsteinJMMillerPJRoettgerRF. Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Elbow and knee measurements. Phys Ther1983; 63: 1611–1615.
15.
ArmstrongADMacDermidJCChinchalkarSStevensRSKingGJ. Reliability of range-of-motion measurement in the elbow and forearm. J Shoulder Elbow Surg1998; 7: 573–580.
16.
GajdosikRL. Comparison and reliability of three goniometric methods for measuring forearm supination and pronation. Percept Mot Skills2001; 93: 353–355.
17.
PetherickMRheaultWKimbleSLechnerCSenearV. Concurrent validity and intertester reliability of universal and fluid-based goniometers for active elbow range of motion. Phys Ther1988; 68: 966–969.
18.
BlonnaDZarkadasPCFitzsimmonsJSO'DriscollSW. Validation of a photography-based goniometry method for measuring joint range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2012; 21: 29–35.
19.
DochertyMASchwabRAMaOJ. Can elbow extension be used as a test of clinically significant injury?South Med J2002; 95: 539–541.
20.
LennonRIRiyatMSHilliamRAnathkrishnanGAldersonG. Can a normal range of elbow movement predict a normal elbow x ray?Emerg Med J2007; 24: 86–88.
21.
JobeFWNuberG. Throwing injuries of the elbow. Clin Sports Med1986; 5: 621–636.
22.
KingJWBrelsfordHJTullosHS. Analysis of the pitching arm of the professional baseball pitcher. Clin Orthop Relat Res1969; 67: 116–123.
23.
MorreyBF. Applied anatomy and biomechanics of the elbow joint. Instr Course Lect1986; 35: 59–68.
24.
NorkinCCWhiteDJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry, Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis, 2009.
25.
ShaabanHPereiraCWilliamsRLeesVC. The effect of elbow position on the range of supination and pronation of the forearm. J Hand Surg Eur2008; 33: 3–8.
26.
CleffkenBvanBGvanMHBrinkPOldeDS. Test-retest reproducibility of elbow goniometric measurements in a rigid double-blinded protocol: intervals for distinguishing between measurement error and clinical change. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16: 788–794.
27.
PhilippouAMaridakiMBogdanisGC. Angle-specific impairment of elbow flexors strength after isometric exercise at long muscle length. J Sports Sci2003; 21: 859–865.
28.
StokdijkMBiegstraatenMOrmelWde BoerYAVeegerHERozingPM. Determining the optimal flexion-extension axis of the elbow in vivo – a study of interobserver and intraobserver reliability. J Biomech2000; 33: 1139–1145.
29.
FishDRWingateL. Sources of goniometric error at the elbow. Phys Ther1985; 65: 1666–1670.
30.
ShibaRSorbieCSiuDWBryantJTCookeTDWeversHW. Geometry of the humeroulnar joint. J Orthop Res1988; 6: 897–906.
31.
Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser1995; 854: 1–452.
32.
PortneyLGWatkinsMP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practise, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
33.
RoebroekMEHarlaarJLankhorstGJ. The application of generalization theory to reliability assesment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. Phys Ther1993; 73: 386–395.
34.
GoldenDWJheeJTGilpinSPSawyerJR. Elbow range of motion and clinical carrying angle in a healthy pediatric population. J Pediatr Orthop B2007; 16: 144–149.
35.
MacedoLGMageeDJ. Differences in range of motion between dominant and nondominant sides of upper and lower extremities. J Manipulative Physiol Ther2008; 31: 577–582.
36.
ParkWRamachandranJWeismanPJungES. Obesity effect on male active joint range of motion. Ergonomic2010; 53: 102–108.
37.
GoldenDWWojcickiJMJheeJTGilpinSLSawyerJRHeymanMB. Body mass index and elbow range of motion in a healthy pediatric population: a possible mechanism of overweight in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr2008; 46: 196–201.
38.
GajdosikRLBohannonRW. Clinical measurement of range of motion. Review of goniometry emphasizing reliability and validity. Phys Ther1987; 67: 1867–1872.
39.
HawiNLiodakisEMusolliDet al.Range of motion assessment of the shoulder and elbow joints using a motion sensing input device: a pilot study. Technol Health Care2014; 22: 289–295.
40.
van de PolRJvanTELucasC. Inter-rater reliability for measurement of passive physiological range of motion of upper extremity joints is better if instruments are used: a systematic review. J Physiother2010; 56: 7–17.
41.
ScholtesVATerweeCBPoolmanRW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable?Injury2011; 42: 236–240.
