Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Static rotational and sagittal knee laxity measurements after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The goal of the present study was to evaluate static anteroposterior and rotational knee laxity after ACL reconstructions with two noninvasive measurement devices by comparing the measured results of the operated with the contralateral healthy knees of the patients.

Methods

Fifty-two consecutive patients were reviewed after isolated single-bundle transtibial ACL reconstruction using a BPTB graft. At a mean follow-up of 27 months, sagittal AP laxity was tested using a noninvasive knee measurement system (Genourob) with an applied pressure of 67 N, 89 N and 134 N. Rotational laxity was measured using a noninvasive rotational knee laxity device (Rotameter) with an applied torque of 5, 8 and 10 Nm. The results were compared with the measurements of the patients’ healthy contralateral knees. Tegner, Lysholm and IKDC score were used in order to evaluate the clinical outcome.

Results

Pivot shift was negative (33) or glide (16) in 49 patients with 12 of 16 (75%) patients having also a pivot glide on the healthy contralateral side; Lachman tests were negative in 50 cases. Subjective assessment of the IKDC score was classified according to category A in 44 patients, B in 5 patients and C in 3 patients. Mean Lysholm score was 94.5 ± 9.5, median Tegner score was 7 (3–9) preoperative and 6 (3–9) at follow-up (n.s.). Anteroposterior knee laxity measurements revealed mean side-to-side differences of 0.6–1.3 mm (P < 0.0001). Rotational laxity measurements revealed no statistical significant differences between the operated and the contralateral knee (n.s.). The measured differences in the entire rotational range varied from 0.2° to 1° depending on the applied torque. In those 3 patients with a positive pivot shift, differences in the entire rotational range of 4.5° at 5 N, 4.6° at 8 N and 4.1° at 10 N were found.

Conclusion

Static knee laxity was quantified after ACL surgery using the introduced noninvasive measurement systems by comparing the measured results of the operated with the contralateral healthy knees. Significant differences were found in AP laxity although they were defined as clinically successful according to the IKDC classification. No significant differences were found in rotational knee laxity measurements. Therefore, the used noninvasive masurement devices might offer a high potential for objective quality control in knee ligament injuries and their treatment.

Level of evidence

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aglietti P, Giron F, Cuomo P et al (2007) Single-and double-incision double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:108–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aglietti P, Giron F, Losco M et al (2010) Comparison between single-and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 38:25–34

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bignozzi S, Zaffagnini S, Lopomo N et al (2010) Clinical relevance of static and dynamic tests after anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:37–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyer P, Djian P, Christel P et al (2004) Reliability of the KT-1000 arthrometer (Medmetric) for measuring anterior knee laxity: comparison with Telos in 147 knees. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 90:757–764

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Branch TP, Browne JE, Campbell JD et al (2010) Rotational laxity greater in patients with contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury than healthy volunteers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1379–1384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bull AM, Andersen HN, Basso O et al (1999) Incidence and mechanism of the pivot shift. An in vitro study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 363:219–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Colombet P, Robinson J, Christel P et al (2007) Using navigation to measure rotation kinematics during ACL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daniel DM, Malcom LL, Losse G et al (1985) Instrumented measurement of anterior laxity of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:720–726

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Forster IW, Warren-Smith CD, Tew M (1989) Is the KT1000 knee ligament arthrometer reliable? J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:843–847

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Georgoulis AD, Papadonikolakis A, Papageorgiou CD et al (2003) Three-dimensional tibiofemoral kinematics of the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient and reconstructed knee during walking. Am J Sports Med 31:75–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hatcher J, Hatcher A, Arbuthnot J, McNicholas M (2005) An investigation to examine the inter-tester and intra-tester reliability of the Rolimeter knee tester, and its sensitivity in identifying knee joint laxity. J Orthop Res 23:1399–1403

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hefti F, Muller W, Jakob RP, Staubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ho JY, Gardiner A, Shah V, Steiner ME (2009) Equal kinematics between central anatomic single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 25:464–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hofbauer M, Valentin P, Kdolsky R et al (2010) Rotational and translational laxity after computer-navigated single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1201–1207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Järvelä T (2007) Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomize clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:500–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanaya A, Ochi M, Deie M et al (2009) Intraoperative evaluation of anteroposterior and rotational stabilities in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: lower femoral tunnel placed single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:907–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kato Y, Ingham SJ, Kramer S et al (2010) Effect of tunnel position for anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction on knee biomechanics in a porcine model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:2–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lorbach O, Pape D, Maas S et al (2010) The influence of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament on external and internal tibiofemoral rotation. Am J Sports Med 38:721–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lorbach O, Wilmes P, Maas S et al (2009) A non-invasive device to objectively measure tibial rotation: verification of the device. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:756–762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lorbach O, Wilmes P, Theisen D et al (2009) Reliability testing of a new device to measure tibial rotation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:920–926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Markolf KL, Park S, Jackson SR, McAllister DR (2008) Simulated pivot-shift testing with single and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1681–1689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Meredick RB, Vance KJ, Appleby D, Lubowitz JH (2008) Outcome of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 36:1414–1421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Muellner T, Bugge W, Johansen S et al (2001) Inter- and intratester comparison of the Rolimeter knee tester: effect of tester’s experience and the examination technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:302–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Muneta T, Koga H, Mochizuki T et al (2007) A prospective randomized study of 4-strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy 23:618–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Noyes FR, Grood ES, Cummings JF, Wroble RR (1991) An analysis of the pivot shift phenomenon. The knee motions and subluxations induced by different examiners. Am J Sports Med 19:148–155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Papandreou MG, Antonogiannakis E, Karabalis C, Karliaftis K (2005) Inter-rater reliability of Rolimeter measurements between anterior cruciate ligament injured and normal contra lateral knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:592–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Park SJ, Jung YB, Jung HJ et al (2010) Outcome of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a preliminary 2-year prospective study. Arthroscopy 26:630–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ristanis S, Giakas G, Papageorgiou CD et al (2003) The effects of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on tibial rotation during pivoting after descending stairs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:360–365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Robert H, Nouveau S, Gageot S, Gagniere B (2009) A new knee arthrometer, the GNRB: experience in ACL complete and partial tears. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:171–176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson J, Carrat L, Granchi C, Colombet P (2007) Influence of anterior cruciate ligament bundles on knee kinematics: clinical assessment using computer-assisted navigation. Am J Sports Med 35:2006–2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sastre S, Popescu D, Nunez M et al (2010) Double-bundle versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the horizontal femoral position: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:32–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schuster AJ, McNicholas MJ, Wachtl SW et al (2004) A new mechanical testing device for measuring anteroposterior knee laxity. Am J Sports Med 32:1731–1735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Siebold R, Dehler C, Ellert T (2008) Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 24:137–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Streich NA, Friedrich K, Gotterbarm T, Schmitt H (2008) Reconstruction of the ACL with a semitendinosus tendon graft: a prospective randomized single blinded comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle technique in male athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:232–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tashman S, Collon D, Anderson K et al (2004) Abnormal rotational knee motion during running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 32:975–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tsai AG, Wijdicks CA, Walsh MP, Laprade RF (2010) Comparative kinematic evaluation of all-inside single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med 38:263–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wiertsema SH, van Hooff HJ, Migchelsen LA, Steultjens MP (2008) Reliability of the KT1000 arthrometer and the Lachman test in patients with an ACL rupture. Knee 15:107–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Woo SL, Kanamori A, Zeminski J et al (2002) The effectiveness of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstrings and patellar tendon. A cadaveric study comparing anterior tibial and rotational loads. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:907–914

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No potential conflicts of interests are declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saarland University, Kirrberger Street, Homburg, Saarland, Germany

    O. Lorbach & M. Kieb

  2. Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Centre-Hospitalier—Clinique d’Eich, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    O. Lorbach, M. Kieb, P. Brogard, D. Pape & R. Seil

  3. Faculté des Sciences, de la Technologie et de la Communication, Université du Luxembourg, Unité ‘Ingénierie’, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    S. Maas

Authors
  1. O. Lorbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Kieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Brogard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Maas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Pape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Seil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Lorbach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lorbach, O., Kieb, M., Brogard, P. et al. Static rotational and sagittal knee laxity measurements after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20, 844–850 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1635-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1635-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation