Healthy knee KT1000 measurements of anterior tibial translation have significant variation
- 21 Downloads
The most commonly used arthrometer for measuring and reporting anterior tibial translation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is the KT1000. Reports on its consistency and reproducibility vary in the literature, but it remains the “gold standard”. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement of KT1000 measurements in a daily clinical setting.
A retrospective analysis of anterior knee translation in the healthy knee of 770 patients over a 17-year time period was performed. In this cohort, a total of 24 investigators performed 1890 measurement sets at 89 Newtons (N), 134N and at maximum manual force (MMax) level. To assess the inter- and intra-observer agreement, the intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The “investigator effect” was a difference between two examiners in the same patient and the “device effect’’ a difference within one examiner in the same patient. Minimally important difference (MID) was calculated as 0.5 of the standard deviation.
Thirteen investigators were female, performing 1099 measurements and 11 were male, performing 791 measurements. ICC ranged between 0.558 and 0.644. At the MMax level, male investigators had a higher mm reading than female investigators (p < 0.001). Increased experience did not correlate with a higher ICC. MID ranged between 0.85 and 1.65 mm.
This study investigated the KT1000 arthrometer in a clinical setting with a large number of investigators. This device delivers moderate agreement of results. Both the device and investigator effect are present. The MMax level has shown the lowest agreement and a dependency on the investigator gender.
Level of evidence
Level III diagnostic study
KeywordsKnee Arthrometer Anterior cruciate ligament Anterior tibial translation
We would like to thank Darli Myat, PhD, for maintaining the database.
AK and SP conceptualized the study, AK, SP, VK and TO gathered the data. AK analyzed the data. AK and DP interpreted the data. AK and SP drafted the manuscript, VK, TO, BF and DP revised it. The major revision was performed by AK and BF. All authors have given approval for the final version of the manuscript. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
No funding was received for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest with respect to this study.
The database used for this study has a prospective, ongoing ethical approval (HREC/17/HAWKE/140).
All patients provided written consent for the data collection.
- 8.Cavaignac E, Coulin B, Tscholl P, Nik Mohd Fatmy N, Duthon V, Menetrey J (2017) Is quadriceps tendon autograft a better choice than hamstring autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A comparative study with a mean follow-up of 3.6 years. Am J Sports Med 45:1326–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Cristiani R, Sarakatsianos V, Engström B, Samuelsson K, Forssblad M, Stålman A (2019) Increased knee laxity with hamstring tendon autograft compared to patellar tendon autograft: a cohort study of 5462 patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.El-Sherief FAH, Aldahshan WA, Wahd YE, Abdelaziz AM, Soliman HAG, Hassan TG, Elbehairy HF, Awadallah AH (2018) Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is better than single-bundle reconstruction in terms of objective assessment but not in terms of subjective score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:2395–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Larson CM, Bedi A, Dietrich ME, Swaringen JC, Wulf CA, Rowley DM, Giveans MR (2017) Generalized hypermobility, knee hyperextension, and outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: prospective, case-control study with mean 6 years follow-up. Arthroscopy 33:1852–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Roberti di Sarsina T, Macchiarola L, Signorelli C, Grassi A, Raggi F, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Zaffagnini S (2018) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with an all-epiphyseal “over-the-top” technique is safe and shows low rate of failure in skeletally immature athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:498–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Taylor DC, DeBerardino TM, Nelson BJ, Duffey M, Tenuta J, Stoneman PD, Sturdivant RX, Mountcastle S (2009) Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial using similar femoral and tibial fixation methods. Am J Sports Med 37:1946–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Yoon KH, Kim JH, Kwon YB, Kim EJ, Kim S-G (2019) Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showed more laxity than revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05653-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar