About this item:

176 Views | 129 Downloads

Author Notes:

Correspondence: S. K. Stinton, Phone: (678)-681-7635, Email: stinton@gmail.com

Subjects:

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Orthopedics
  • Sport Sciences
  • Surgery
  • Clinical knee examination
  • Knee injury
  • Knee laxity
  • Robotic knee testing
  • Ligament injury
  • Medial collateral ligament
  • Posterolateral corner
  • ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT
  • MEDIAL COLLATERAL LIGAMENT
  • BUNDLE ACL RECONSTRUCTION
  • IN-VIVO
  • TIBIAL ROTATION
  • ACCURACY
  • INJURIES
  • RELIABILITY
  • INSTABILITY
  • STABILITY

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

Tools:

Journal Title:

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Volume:

Volume 25, Number 8

Publisher:

, Pages 2460-2467

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

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.

Copyright information:

© 2015, The Author(s).

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Export to EndNote