The Knee · 2017
Validity of rotational laxity coupled with anterior translation of the knee: A cadaveric study comparing radiostereometry and the Rotab®.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Senioris A, Rousseau T, L'Hermette M, Gouzy S, Duparc F, Dujardin F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In current practice, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears can be diagnosed using several devices to measure anterior tibial translation and rotational knee laxity, but these measures are never collected together. The Rotab®, which yields simultaneous measurements of anterior tibial translation and passive lower limb rotation under stress, would therefore be advantageous in current practice, but its reliability has never been tested.
AIM OF STUDY: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the Rotab® compared to the reference system, radiostereometric analysis (RSA).
METHODS: This anatomical study was conducted on 14 lower limbs collected from fresh cadavers. Simultaneous measurements of anterior tibial translation and rotation were obtained with both systems, with antero-posterior (AP) forces of 134N and 250N using the Rotab®. Measurements were made on intact ACL and then repeated after ACL section. Variables were analyzed in univariate analysis by ANOVA, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the systems was determined by the Bland and Altman method.
RESULTS: The difference between the two methods for evaluating anterior tibial translation was 0.05±0.98mm at 134N and 0.29±1.04mm at 250N. The correlation between the tests was high (r134=r250=0.97, p=0.8). The difference between the two methods for rotational laxity was 0.69±2.7° at 134N and 0.5±0.6° at 250N. The Rotab® showed a significant difference only at 250N for rotational laxity after the ACL tear.
CONCLUSION: The Rotab® is a reliable device to measure rotational laxity coupled with anterior translation of the knee.
AIM OF STUDY: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the Rotab® compared to the reference system, radiostereometric analysis (RSA).
METHODS: This anatomical study was conducted on 14 lower limbs collected from fresh cadavers. Simultaneous measurements of anterior tibial translation and rotation were obtained with both systems, with antero-posterior (AP) forces of 134N and 250N using the Rotab®. Measurements were made on intact ACL and then repeated after ACL section. Variables were analyzed in univariate analysis by ANOVA, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the systems was determined by the Bland and Altman method.
RESULTS: The difference between the two methods for evaluating anterior tibial translation was 0.05±0.98mm at 134N and 0.29±1.04mm at 250N. The correlation between the tests was high (r134=r250=0.97, p=0.8). The difference between the two methods for rotational laxity was 0.69±2.7° at 134N and 0.5±0.6° at 250N. The Rotab® showed a significant difference only at 250N for rotational laxity after the ACL tear.
CONCLUSION: The Rotab® is a reliable device to measure rotational laxity coupled with anterior translation of the knee.