These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Reliability of a Novel Automatic Knee Arthrometer for Measuring Knee Laxity After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures.
    Author: Niu X, Mai H, Wu T, Jiang Y, Duan X, Liu M, Liu J, Ding L, Ao Y.
    Journal: Orthop J Sports Med; 2022 Feb; 10(2):23259671211051301. PubMed ID: 35187181.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The accuracy of existing devices for measuring knee laxity is adversely affected by examiner reliability. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of a novel automatic knee arthrometer (AKA) to that of the KT-2000 arthrometer for measuring knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: We measured anterior displacement and the anterior displacement difference (ADD) at 134 N of anterior force in 221 healthy volunteers and 200 patients with ACL ruptures. All trials were performed by the same 2 examiners. We first analyzed the effects of examiner, side assessed, and device type using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), t test, and F test. We then used the receiver operating characteristic curve to compare the diagnostic value of the measurements between devices. RESULTS: In repeated measurements for a single healthy volunteer, there were no differences in the variance of the measurements between sides according to the AKA (standard deviation of right vs left knee for examiner A: 0.43 vs 0.58 mm, respectively [P = .39]; for examiner B: 0.49 vs 0.77 mm, respectively [P = .81]), while the KT-2000 measurements showed differences (standard deviation of right vs left knee for examiner A: 1.47 vs 0.80 mm, respectively [P = .02]; for examiner B: 1.78 vs 0.91 mm, respectively [P = .01]). The ADD assessed by the AKA was not significantly different between examiners A and B (0.50 vs 0.75 mm, respectively; P = .27; ICC = 0.83), but the KT-2000 showed a difference (1.07 vs 2.01 mm, respectively; P = .01; ICC = 0.55). The ADD of 20 healthy volunteers assessed by the AKA was less than that by the KT-2000 (0.98 vs 1.41 mm, respectively; P = .04). When comparing the diagnostic value of the 2 devices in the sample of 200 patients with ACL ruptures and 200 healthy controls, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AKA was larger than that for the KT-2000 (0.93 vs 0.87, respectively; P ≤ .01), and the threshold values were 1.75 and 2.73 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: The AKA can be used to determine the degree of knee laxity in ACL injuries and to provide indications for treatment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]