Anna Gabriel 1 , Andreas Konrad 2, Nadine Herold 3, Thomas Horstmann 1, Robert Schleip 1,4 and Florian K. Paternoster 5
1 Department of Conservative and Rehabilitative Orthopedics, School of Medicine and Health,Technical University of Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany
2 Institute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, 8010 Graz, Austria
3 Department Sport and Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich,80992 Munich, Germany
4 Department of Medical Professions, Diploma University of Applied Sciences, 37242 Bad Sooden-Allendorf, Germany
5 Department of Biomechanics in Sports, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany
(1) Background: The isokinetic measurement (IM) of the leg muscles is well established but costly, whereas the Bunkie Test (BT) is a rarely investigated but easy-to-conduct functional test to evaluate the total posterior chain. Although the tests differ in aim and test structures, both have their justification in the assessment process. Therefore, this study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the BT and the IM. (2) Methods: 21 participants (9 female, 12 male; age, 26.2 ± 5.26 years; weight 73.8 ± 14.6 kg; height 176.0 ± 9.91 cm) and 21 patients (9 female, 12 male; age, 26.5 ± 5.56 years; weight, 72.6 ± 16.9 kg; height 177.0 ± 10.1 cm) with self-reported pain in the knee performed the IM and the BT. For IM, we calculated the ratio of the knee mean flexor/extensor peak torque (H/Q ratio) for 60◦/s and 120◦/s, and BT performance was measured in seconds. We classified the IM (<0.6 H/Q
ratio) and the BT (leg difference ≥4 s) as binary results according to the literature. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity, which we compared with the Chi-Square test, and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). A p-value of ≤0.05 is considered significant. (3) Results: The sensitivity for the BT was 0.89, 95% CI [0.67, 0.99], and the specificity was 0.52 [0.30, 0.74]. For the IM, the sensitivity was 0.14 [0.03, 0.36] for 60◦/s and 0.05 [0.00, 0.24] for 120◦/s, and the specificity was 0.70 [0.46, 0.88] for 60◦/s and 0.90 [0.68, 0.99] for 120◦/s. The results of the Chi-Square tests were significant for the BT (χ2 (1) = 6.17, p = 0.01) but not for the IM (60◦/s: χ2 (1) = 0.70, p = 0.40; 120◦/s: χ2 (1) = 0.00, p = 0.97). (4) Conclusions: Patients were more likely to obtain a positive test result for the BT but not for the IM.