Cargando…

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 le...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Branch, T. P., Stinton, S. K., Siebold, R., Freedberg, H. I., Jacobs, C. A., Hutton, W. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26704793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3935-7
_version_ 1783252184313364480
author Branch, T. P.
Stinton, S. K.
Siebold, R.
Freedberg, H. I.
Jacobs, C. A.
Hutton, W. C.
author_facet Branch, T. P.
Stinton, S. K.
Siebold, R.
Freedberg, H. I.
Jacobs, C. A.
Hutton, W. C.
author_sort Branch, T. P.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5522506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55225062017-08-07 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. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Knee 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. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-12-24 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5522506/ /pubmed/26704793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3935-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Knee
Branch, T. P.
Stinton, S. K.
Siebold, R.
Freedberg, H. I.
Jacobs, C. A.
Hutton, W. C.
Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination
title Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination
title_full Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination
title_fullStr Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination
title_short Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination
title_sort assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26704793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3935-7
work_keys_str_mv AT branchtp assessmentofkneelaxityusingarobotictestingdeviceacomparisontothemanualclinicalkneeexamination
AT stintonsk assessmentofkneelaxityusingarobotictestingdeviceacomparisontothemanualclinicalkneeexamination
AT sieboldr assessmentofkneelaxityusingarobotictestingdeviceacomparisontothemanualclinicalkneeexamination
AT freedberghi assessmentofkneelaxityusingarobotictestingdeviceacomparisontothemanualclinicalkneeexamination
AT jacobsca assessmentofkneelaxityusingarobotictestingdeviceacomparisontothemanualclinicalkneeexamination
AT huttonwc assessmentofkneelaxityusingarobotictestingdeviceacomparisontothemanualclinicalkneeexamination