Advertisement

A new quantitative method for pivot shift grading

  • S. Kopf
  • R. Kauert
  • J. Halfpaap
  • T. Jung
  • R. BeckerEmail author
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

The purposes of the study were to evaluate and to quantify the pivot shift phenomenon by using a small and easy to handle measuring device for pivot shift quantification.

Methods

Twenty patients (forty knees) with primary torn anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL) were tested under anesthesia, graded by the examiner and by the device according to the IKDC classification [normal (0), glide (1), clunk (2), and gross (3)]. For the grading by the device, a femoral and a tibial miniature inertial sensor measured the acceleration and the angular velocities. Three parameters were used for pivot shift identification and quantification: (1) difference between the positive and negative acceleration peak value (a diff), (2) the maximum jerk (j max), and (3) the standard deviation (SD a ) of the acceleration. The ratio between the ACL-deficient and the intact knees was calculated in order to normalize the data.

Results

The pivot shift phenomenon could be identified, and all three parameters showed significant higher values in the ACL-deficient knees compared to the intact knees (p < 0.05). The grading by examiner did not significantly correlate with a diff (p = 0.38; r = 0.21), j max (p = 0.36; r = −0.22), SD a (p = 0.65; r = 0.11), and grading by the device (p = 0.62; r = 0.12).

Conclusions

The present study has shown that the quantification of the pivot shift test is practicable when inertial sensors are used. The results have shown that the subjective grading of the pivot shift test does not correlate well with objective quantification.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament Tear Pivot shift Grading Acceleration Angular velocity Inertial sensor 

References

  1. 1.
    Araki D, Kuroda R, Kubo S, Fujita N, Tei K, Nishimoto K, Hoshino Y, Matsushita T, Matsumoto T, Nagamune K, Kurosaka M (2011) A prospective randomised study of anatomical single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: quantitative evaluation using an electromagnetic measurement system. Int Orthop 35:439–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benjaminse A, Gokeler A, van der Schans CP (2006) Clinical diagnosis of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36:267–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bull AM, Earnshaw PH, Smith A, Katchburian MV, Hassan AN, Amis AA (2002) Intraoperative measurement of knee kinematics in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:1075–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Citak M, Suero EM, Rozell JC, Bosscher MR, Kuestermeyer J, Pearle AD (2011) A mechanized and standardized pivot shifter: technical description and first evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:707–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donaldson WF, Warren RF, Wickiewicz T (1985) A comparison of acute anterior cruciate ligament examinations. Initial versus examination under anesthesia. Am J Sports Med 13:5–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hefti F, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoshino Y, Kuroda R, Nagamune K, Yagi M, Mizuno K, Yamaguchi M, Muratsu H, Yoshiya S, Kurosaka M (2007) In vivo measurement of the pivot-shift test in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee using an electromagnetic device. Am J Sports Med 35:1098–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, Fu FH (1998) Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6:107–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jarvela T (2007) Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomize clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:500–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jonsson H, Riklund-Ahlström K, Lind J (2004) Positive pivot shift after ACL reconstruction predicts later osteoarthrosis: 63 patients followed 5–9 years after surgery. Acta Orthop Scand 75:594–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lane CG, Warren RF, Stanford FC, Kendoff D, Pearle AD (2008) In vivo analysis of the pivot shift phenomenon during computer navigated ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:487–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lopomo N, Zaffagnini S, Signorelli C, Bignozzi S, Giordano G, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Visani A (2011) An original clinical methodology for non-invasive assessment of pivot-shift test. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2011.591788
  13. 13.
    Maeyama A, Hoshino Y, Debandi A, Kato Y, Saeki K, Asai S, Goto B, Smolinski P, Fu FH (2011) Evaluation of rotational instability in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee using triaxial accelerometer: a biomechanical model in porcine knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1382-z
  14. 14.
    Magit DP, McGarry M, Tibone JE, Lee TQ (2008) Comparison of cutaneous and transosseous electromagnetic position sensors in the assessment of tibial rotation in a cadaveric model. Am J Sports Med 36:971–977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Musahl V, Bedi A, Citak M, O’Loughlin P, Choi D, Pearle AD (2011) Effect of single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions on pivot-shift kinematics in anterior cruciate ligament- and meniscus-deficient knees. Am J Sports Med 39:289–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Musahl V, Voos JE, O’Loughlin PF, Choi D, Stueber V, Kendoff D, Pearle AD (2010) Comparing stability of different single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: a cadaveric study using navigation. Arthroscopy 26:S41–S48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noyes FR, Grood ES, Cummings JF, Wroble RR (1991) An analysis of the pivot shift phenomenon. Am J Sports Med 19:148–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oberlander MA, Shalvoy RM, Hughston JC (1993) The accuracy of the clinical knee examination documented by arthroscopy. A prospective study. Am J Sports Med 21:773–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petersen W, Zantop T (2006) Partial rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy 22:1143–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petrie A (2006) Statistics in orthopaedic papers. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1121–1136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siebold R, Branch TP, Freedberg HI, Jacobs CA (2011) A matched pairs comparison of single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions, clinical results and manual laxity testing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(Suppl 1):4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Streich NA, Zimmermann D, Bode G, Schmitt H (2011) Reconstructive versus non-reconstructive treatment of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. A retrospective matched-pair long-term follow-up. Int Orthop 35:607–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Kopf
    • 3
  • R. Kauert
    • 2
  • J. Halfpaap
    • 2
  • T. Jung
    • 3
  • R. Becker
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic and TraumatologyCity HospitalBrandenburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Micro and Sensor SystemsOtto-von-Guericke-UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  3. 3.Section Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy, Center for Musculoskeletal SurgeryCharité, University MedicineBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations