Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination.
Branch, T P; Stinton, S K; Siebold, R; Freedberg, H I; Jacobs, C A; Hutton, W C.
Afiliación
  • Branch TP; University Orthopaedic Clinic, Decatur, GA, USA.
  • Stinton SK; ArthroMetrix, LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA. stinton@gmail.com.
  • Siebold R; ATOS Klinik, Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Freedberg HI; Suburban Orthopaedics, Bartlett, IL, USA.
  • Jacobs CA; Lexington Clinic, Lexington, KY, USA.
  • Hutton WC; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc ; 25(8): 2460-2467, 2017 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26704793
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to collect knee laxity data using a robotic testing device. The data collected were then compared to the results obtained from manual clinical examination. METHODS: Two human cadavers were studied. A medial collateral ligament (MCL) tear was simulated in the left knee of cadaver 1, and a posterolateral corner (PLC) injury was simulated in the right knee of cadaver 2. Contralateral knees were left intact. Five blinded examiners carried out manual clinical examination on the knees. Laxity grades and a diagnosis were recorded. Using a robotic knee device which can measure knee laxity in three planes of motion: anterior-posterior, internal-external tibia rotation, and varus-valgus, quantitative data were obtained to document tibial motion relative to the femur. RESULTS: One of the five examiners correctly diagnosed the MCL injury. Robotic testing showed a 1.7° larger valgus angle, 3° greater tibial internal rotation, and lower endpoint stiffness (11.1 vs. 24.6 Nm/°) in the MCL-injured knee during varus-valgus testing when compared to the intact knee and 4.9 mm greater medial tibial translation during rotational testing. Two of the five examiners correctly diagnosed the PLC injury, while the other examiners diagnosed an MCL tear. The PLC-injured knee demonstrated 4.1 mm more lateral tibial translation and 2.2 mm more posterior tibial translation during varus-valgus testing when compared to the intact knee. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic testing device was able to provide objective numerical data that reflected differences between the injured knees and the uninjured knees in both cadavers. The examiners that performed the manual clinical examination on the cadaver knees proved to be poor at diagnosing the injuries. Robotic testing could act as an adjunct to the manual clinical examination by supplying numbers that could improve diagnosis of knee injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Examen Físico / Robótica / Ligamento Colateral Medial de la Rodilla / Inestabilidad de la Articulación / Traumatismos de la Rodilla / Articulación de la Rodilla Tipo de estudio: Guideline Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA ESPORTIVA / TRAUMATOLOGIA Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Examen Físico / Robótica / Ligamento Colateral Medial de la Rodilla / Inestabilidad de la Articulación / Traumatismos de la Rodilla / Articulación de la Rodilla Tipo de estudio: Guideline Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA ESPORTIVA / TRAUMATOLOGIA Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos