## 3 Results  
Table 1 presents the results for knee angular measurements in different ranges of angle and the time required to perform 5 TSST among healthy participants, which were measured using the MSD and by the two examiners and were used to assess the reliability of MSD measurements. The interrater reliability for the angular measurement of knee flexion in three range of angles, as assessed using the MSD and by the two examiners, was considered good to excellent (ICC range: 0.862-0.934). The interrater reliability for the time required to perform 5 TSST between the MSD and the two examiners was also excellent (ICC: 0.996). Table 2 presents the patient demographics, which did not differ significantly at baseline between the two groups. After two months of rehabilitation training, patients in both the MAR and HE groups exhibited significant improvements from baseline in all parameters, except pain on the VAS (Table 3). However, patients in the MSD group demonstrated significantly better recovery of the knee maximal extension angle (\(p\) = 0.04) and performance in the 5 TSST time and maximal and average angular velocity (\(p\) = 0.04, 0.05, 0.03, respectively) at the 2-month follow-up (Table 3). Patients in the MAR group displayed significantly better recovery of the knee maximal extension angle over time and showed higher maximal and average angular velocity in 5 TSST (\(p\) = 0.049, 0.002, 0.006, respectively) than patients in the HE group (Table 4). Table 5 illustrates that patients in the MAR group had a significantly higher overall ECR as reported by the patients during the two months of rehabilitation compared with patients in the HE group (\(p\) = 0.041). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Knee Flexion within the Targeted Range of Angle**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Time Spent for**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**12. Volunteers** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Angle \textless{} 60\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ _(n = 12)_ \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Angle \textless{} 90\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ _(n = 12)_ \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Angle \textgreater{} 90\({}^{\circ}\)** \\ _(n = 12)_ \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Overall** \\ _(n = 36)_ \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Completing 5 TSST** \\ _(n = 12)_ \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Examiner 1 & 34.7\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 9.7\({}^{\circ}\) & 89.6\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 5.3\({}^{\circ}\) & 122.8\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 10.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 82.4\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 37.8\({}^{\circ}\) & 11.2 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ \hline Examiner 2 & 37.2\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 8.3\({}^{\circ}\) & 92.3\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 7.1\({}^{\circ}\) & 124.2\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 10.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 84.6\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 37.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 11.2 \(\pm\) 1.5 \\ \hline Motion sensor & 35.0\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 9.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 92.9\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 8.6\({}^{\circ}\) & 123.5\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 11.6\({}^{\circ}\) & 83.8\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 38.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 11.3 \(\pm\) 1.6 \\ \hline ICC among examiners & 0.924 & 0.862 & 0.934 & 0.996 & 0.996 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Notes: ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; 5 TSST: 5-times sit-to-stand _test_.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Interobserver reliability between angle measurements and measurements of the time for performing 5-times sit-to-stand _test_ obtained by different examiners.