Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR · 2012
Anterior knee laxity measurement: comparison of passive stress radiographs Telos(®) and "Lerat", and GNRB(®) arthrometer.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beldame J, Mouchel S, Bertiaux S, Adam J-M, Mouilhade F, Roussignol X, Dujardin F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, anterior laxity can be measured using stress radiographs or more recently introduced electronic measurement devices.
HYPOTHESIS: The GNRB(®) arthrometer offers a radiation-free method of measuring anterior knee laxity whose diagnostic value is identical to that of Telos(®) or Lerat stress radiographs.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients (40 years [18-69]) scheduled for knee arthroscopy were evaluated using the GNRB(®) and two series of stress radiographs of both knees, one obtained using a 250-N Telos(®) device and the other using the technique described by Lerat (posterior translation of the femur/tibia under a 9-kg loading device). Arthroscopic evaluation of the ACL served as the reference standard for assessing the diagnostic performance of the radiological and instrumental laxity measurements.
RESULTS: Under arthroscopic examination, the ACL was normal in 50.3%; "healed to roof of the notch" (partial tear) in 9.6%, "posterolateral bundle preserved" (partial tear) in 7.0%, "healed to the posterior cruciate ligament" (PCL) in 17.8%, and "empty notch" (complete tear) in 15.3%. In partial ACL tears, no significant differences in anterior laxity were found across the three measurement techniques. Telos(®) and GNRB(®) laxities were greater in the complete-tear group than in the normal-ACL, partial-tear, and healed-to-PCL groups. With the Lerat technique, the only significant differences were between the complete-tear group and the normal-ACL and partial-tear groups. Telos(®) and GNRB(®) showed similar diagnostic performance (sensitivity>62%, specificity>75%), whereas the Lerat technique lacked sensitivity (sensitivity=43.2%, specificity=82.7%) at 3mm.
DISCUSSION: Diagnostic performance was lower in our study than in earlier reports. The GNRB(®) performed as well as Telos(®). The non-irradiating nature of GNRB(®) assessments allows repeated measurements for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective case-control study.
HYPOTHESIS: The GNRB(®) arthrometer offers a radiation-free method of measuring anterior knee laxity whose diagnostic value is identical to that of Telos(®) or Lerat stress radiographs.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients (40 years [18-69]) scheduled for knee arthroscopy were evaluated using the GNRB(®) and two series of stress radiographs of both knees, one obtained using a 250-N Telos(®) device and the other using the technique described by Lerat (posterior translation of the femur/tibia under a 9-kg loading device). Arthroscopic evaluation of the ACL served as the reference standard for assessing the diagnostic performance of the radiological and instrumental laxity measurements.
RESULTS: Under arthroscopic examination, the ACL was normal in 50.3%; "healed to roof of the notch" (partial tear) in 9.6%, "posterolateral bundle preserved" (partial tear) in 7.0%, "healed to the posterior cruciate ligament" (PCL) in 17.8%, and "empty notch" (complete tear) in 15.3%. In partial ACL tears, no significant differences in anterior laxity were found across the three measurement techniques. Telos(®) and GNRB(®) laxities were greater in the complete-tear group than in the normal-ACL, partial-tear, and healed-to-PCL groups. With the Lerat technique, the only significant differences were between the complete-tear group and the normal-ACL and partial-tear groups. Telos(®) and GNRB(®) showed similar diagnostic performance (sensitivity>62%, specificity>75%), whereas the Lerat technique lacked sensitivity (sensitivity=43.2%, specificity=82.7%) at 3mm.
DISCUSSION: Diagnostic performance was lower in our study than in earlier reports. The GNRB(®) performed as well as Telos(®). The non-irradiating nature of GNRB(®) assessments allows repeated measurements for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective case-control study.