Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 47, Issue 10, pp 1349–1355 | Cite as

Anterior laxity of the knee assessed with gravity stress radiograph

  • Tatsuo Mae
  • Konsei Shino
  • Kunihiko Hiramatsu
  • Yuta Tachibana
  • Shigeto Nakagawa
  • Hideki Yoshikawa
Scientific Article
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To clarify the advantage of prone position over supine position in radiographically-demonstrating anterior knee laxity measurement for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, and to optimize the radiographic technique for the ACL-deficient knees in a clinical setting.

Materials and methods

Thirty-nine patients with unilateral ACL injury had consented to participate in this study. They were divided into two groups and subjected to the different radiographic evaluations: study 1 (20 patients); supine versus prone position with knee full-extended, and study 2 (19 patients); comparison of (1) prone position with knee full-extended (FPV), (2) prone position with knee flexed at 15° (AGV), and (3) supine position with calf put on a board at 15° of knee flexion (SGV). Lateral radiographs for both knees were taken and were measured the side-to-side difference of tibial position related to femur.

Results

In study 1, the side-to-side difference was 2.8 ± 1.0 mm in supine position and 4.3 ± 2.1 mm in prone position, showing a statistically significant difference. In study 2, the side-to-side difference was 3.7 ± 2.4 mm in FPV, 4.6 ± 2.0 mm in AGV, and 4.2 ± 2.8 mm in SGV, while the difference in the latter two positions was larger than that in FPV.

Conclusions

The anterior laxity in prone position is larger than that in supine position for ACL injury. Moreover, the gravity-assisted lateral radiograph in prone position with knee flexed at 15° could be one of the preferable radiographic techniques and could provide more information than the simple radiograph.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament Radiography Gravity Prone Full-extension 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Daniel DM, Malcom LL, Losse G, Sachs R, Burks R. Instrumented measurement of anterior laxity of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(5):720–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shino K, Inoue M, Horibe S, Nakamura H, Ono K. Measurement of anterior instability of the knee. A new apparatus for clinical testing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(4):608–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Markolf KL, Graff-Radford A, Amstutz HC. In vivo knee stability. A quantitative assessment using an instrumented clinical testing apparatus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(5):664–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uh BS, Beynnon BD, Churchill DL, Haugh LD, Risberg MA, Fleming BC. A new device to measure knee laxity during weightbearing and nonweightbearing conditions. J Orthop Res. 2001;19(6):1185–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-0266(01)00055-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobsen K. Stress radiographical measurement of the anteroposterior, medial and lateral stability of the knee joint. Acta Orthop Scand. 1976;47(3):335–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Staubli HU, Noesberger B, Jakob RP. Stress radiography of the knee: cruciate ligament function studied in 138 patients. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1992;249:1–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kobayashi S, Terayama K. Quantitative stress radiography for diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Comparison between manual and instrument techniques and between methods with knee flexed at 20 degrees and at 90 degrees. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1993;112(3):109–12.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balasch H, Schiller M, Friebel H, Hoffmann F. Evaluation of anterior knee joint instability with the Rolimeter. A test in comparison with manual assessment and measuring with the KT-1000 arthrometer. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7(4):204–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001670050149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ganko A, Engebretsen L, Ozer H. The rolimeter: a new arthrometer compared with the KT-1000. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2000;8(1):36–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001670050008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Panisset J-C, Ntagiopoulosb P-G, Sagginc PR, Dejour D. A comparison of telos stress radiography versus Rolimeter in the diagnosis of different patterns of anterior cruciate ligament tears. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(7):751–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.07.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dejour H, Walch G, Chambat P, Ranger P. Active subluxation in extension: a new concept of study of the ACL deficient knee. Am J Knee Surg. 1998;1:204–11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fukuta H, Takahashi S, Hasegawa Y, Ida K, Iwata H. Passive terminal extension causes anterior tibial translation in some anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. J Orthop Sci. 2000;5(3):192–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s007760000050192.776.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakamura K, Koga H, Sekiya I, Watanabe T, Mochizuki T, Horie M, et al. Evaluation of pivot shift phenomenon while awake and under anaesthesia by different manoeuvres using triaxial accelerometer. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(8):2377–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nagai K, Hoshino Y, Nishizawa Y, Araki D, Matsushita T, Matsumoto T, et al. Quantitative comparison of the pivot shift test results before and after anterior cruciate ligamentre construction by using the three-dimensional electromagnetic measurement system. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(10):2876–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shino K, Mitsuoka T, Horibe H, Hamada M, Nakata K, Nakamura N. The gravity sag view: a simple radiographic technique to show posterior laxity of the knee. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(6):670–2.  https://doi.org/10.1053/jars.2000.7688.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Markolf KL, Gorek JF, Kabo M, Shapiro MS. Direct measurement of resultant forces in the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(4):557–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Almekinders LC, Chiavetta JB. Tibial subluxation in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee: implications for tibial tunnel placement. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(9):960–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markolf KL, Kochan A, Amstutz HC. Measurement of knee stiffness and laxity in patients with documented absence of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):242–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Highgenboten CL, Jackson AW, Jansson KA, Meske NB. KT-1000 arthrometer: conscious and unconscious test results using 15, 20, and 30 pounds of force. Am J Sports Med. 1992;20(4):450–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuita-cityJapan
  2. 2.Sports Orthopaedic CenterYukioka HospitalOsaka-cityJapan

Personalised recommendations