Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination.

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.

The use of a robotic tibial rotation device and an electromagnetic tracking system to accurately reproduce the clinical dial test.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine whether a robotic tibial rotation device and an electromagnetic tracking system could accurately reproduce the clinical dial test at 30° of knee flexion; (2) compare rotation data captured at the footplates of the robotic device to tibial rotation data measured using an electromagnetic sensor on the proximal tibia. METHODS: Thirty-two unilateral ACL-reconstructed patients were examined using a robotic tibial rotation device that mimicked the dial test. The data reported in this study is only from the healthy legs of these patients. Torque was applied through footplates and was measured using servomotors. Lower leg motion was measured at the foot using the motors. Tibial motion was also measured through an electromagnetic tracking system and a sensor on the proximal tibia. Load-deformation curves representing rotational motion of the foot and tibia were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Off-axis motions including medial-lateral translation and anterior-posterior translation were also measured using the electromagnetic system. RESULTS: The robotic device and electromagnetic system were able to provide axial rotation data and translational data for the tibia during the dial test. Motion measured at the foot was not correlated to motion of the tibial tubercle in internal rotation or in external rotation. The position of the tibial tubercle was 26.9° ± 11.6° more internally rotated than the foot at torque 0 Nm. Medial-lateral translation and anterior-posterior translation were combined to show the path of the tubercle in the coronal plane during tibial rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The information captured during a manual dial test includes both rotation of the tibia and proximal tibia translation. All of this information can be captured using a robotic tibial axial rotation device with an electromagnetic tracking system. The pathway of the tibial tubercle during tibial axial rotation can provide additional information about knee instability without relying on side-to-side comparison between knees. The translation of the proximal tibia is important information that must be considered in addition to axial rotation of the tibia when performing a dial test whether done manually or with a robotic device. Instrumented foot position cannot provide the same information. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A matched pairs comparison of single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions, clinical results and manual laxity testing.

PURPOSE: To compare the subjective clinical results as well as manual anterior and rotational stability in patients treated with either single- (SB) or double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. METHODS: Sixty-four patients who had undergone SB or DB hamstring ACL reconstruction with hamstrings were included in a retrospective matched pair analysis. At follow-up IKDC subjective, CKS, KOOS, CKS and a visual analogue satisfaction scale was assessed. A blinded surgeon examined the joint laxity and completed the objective IKDC. The KT-1000 was used to bilaterally test anterior tibial translation. Patients with confounding variables, which statistically influenced the clinical outcome (passive flexion and extension deficits, persistent quadriceps deficit, tibiofemoral osteoarthritis and non-repairable medial meniscus injury), were identified and excluded from the statistical analysis (n = 10). RESULTS: For all subjective scores, DB patients reported increased scores compared with SB patients. While consistently higher scores were demonstrated, statistical significance was only achieved for the IKDC subjective (P = 0.04) and VAS satisfaction (P = 0.02). Graded stability results of the Lachman, anterior drawer and pivot-shift tests were significantly higher in the DB group and KT-1000 side-to-side difference was significantly better for DB (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: DB ACL reconstruction appeared to more consistently result in significantly higher subjective outcome scores and manual tests of joint stability than SB ACL reconstruction. Besides the surgical technique, normal extension and quadriceps strength after surgery were identified to be an essential component in order to provide the patient with a successful outcome.

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction demonstrated superior clinical stability to single-bundle ACL reconstruction: a matched-pairs analysis of instrumented tests of tibial anterior translation and internal rotation laxity.

PURPOSE: To compare objective measures of in vivo joint laxity between patients treated with single-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. METHODS: Sixty-four patients matched by age, height, weight, and that had undergone unilateral SB or DB hamstring ACL reconstruction participated in this study. Bilateral anterior tibial translation (ATT) was recorded using the KT1000 arthrometer, and a robotic testing system was used to assess side-to-side differences in rotational characteristics. Each reconstruction was evaluated to determine how well it mimicked the anteroposterior (AP) and rotational biomechanics of the normal knee. A reconstruction was defined as mimicking the normal knee if ATT and internal rotation (IR) were within 3 mm and 3.5°, respectively. RESULTS: Side-to-side differences in ATT were significantly higher for the SB group (2.2 ± 1.4 mm) than the DB group (1.1 ± 1.0 mm, P = 0.001). While relative side-to-side differences in IR did not differ between the SB (1.3°) and DB groups (1.1°, P = 0.82), absolute IR differences were significantly less with the DB reconstruction (2.1° vs. 4.7°, P = 0.001). A significantly greater percentage of DB patients (81%, P = 0.0003) had both ATT and IR similar to the normal knee, compared to 34% of the SB patients; however, IKDC subjective scores did not differ between groups. Regardless of technique, patients with the greatest rotational laxity of their non-operative knee demonstrated significantly worse IKDC scores. CONCLUSION: DB reconstruction resulted in reduced side-to-side differences in both ATT and IR. The DB technique more consistently reproduced the biomechanical profile of the uninjured limb than did the SB technique without increasing the risk of over-constraining the knee.

Rotational laxity greater in patients with contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury than healthy volunteers.

Rotational stability of the knee has been traditionally difficult to quantify, limiting the ability of the orthopedic community to determine the potential role of rotational laxity in the etiology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The purposes of this multicenter cohort study were to evaluate the reliability of a robotic axial rotation measurement system, determine whether the uninjured knees of patients that had previous contralateral ACL reconstruction demonstrated different rotational biomechanical characteristics than a group of healthy volunteers, and determine whether knee rotational biomechanical characteristics differ between male and female non-injured limbs in groups of both healthy volunteers and patients with a previous contralateral ACL injury. Fourteen healthy volunteers and 79 patients with previous unilateral ACL injury participated in this study. Patients were tested using a computerized tibial axial rotation system. Only the normal (non-operated) knee data were used for analysis. In order to assess the reliability of the robotic measurement system, 10 healthy volunteers were tested daily over four consecutive days by four different examiners. Rotational laxity and compliance measures demonstrated excellent reliability (ICC = 0.97). Patients with a contralateral ACL injury demonstrated significantly increased tibial internal rotation (20.6° vs. 11.4°, P < 0.001) and reduced external rotation (16.7° vs. 26.6°, P < 0.001) compared to healthy volunteers. Females demonstrated significantly increased internal and external rotation, as well as significantly increased rotational compliance compared with males (P < 0.05). Computer-assisted measurement techniques may offer clinicians an accurate, reliable, non-invasive method to select the most appropriate preventative or surgical interventions for patients with increased knee rotational laxity.

The effect of adjunctive methylmethacrylate on failures of fixation and function in patients with intertrochanteric fractures and osteoporosis.

In a retrospective review of eighty-two intertrochanteric fractures (twenty-nine stable and fifty-three unstable) in seventy-nine elderly, debilitated patients with associated advanced osteoporosis (Grade III or less by the system of Singh et al.), fifty-six were available for follow-up: twenty-eight that had been treated at the University of Illinois with an approximately anatomical reduction and compression-screw fixation and twenty-eight (in twenty-seven patients) that had been treated at the University of Chicago with an approximately anatomical reduction, compression-screw fixation, and adjunctive methylmethacrylate bone cement in the head-neck fragment. Follow-up analysis after an average of thirty-four months for the group that had augmentation with cement and an average of twenty-six months for the uncemented group showed that for the eighteen stable fractures that could be followed the rates of complications of fixation were the same in the two groups, while for the thirty-eight unstable comminuted fractures that were followed the rate of complications of fixation was lower when adjunctive methylmethacrylate cement was used. Among the unstable fractures, one failure (in twenty-one fractures) in the cement-augmented group and ten failures (in seventeen fractures) in the uncemented group were due to failure of fixation (p less than 0.01). For reasons that are not clear, when the thirty-two patients with a healed fracture who could be evaluated for function were rated using the Iowa hip score, the nineteen who were treated with adjunctive cement had significantly lower scores than did the thirteen who were treated without cement (76 +/- 16.5 compared with 92 +/- 12.1, p less than 0.01).