Alexander H. Fischbach , Gregory D. Myer , Kim D. Barber-Foss , Nathan D. Schilaty , Alexandra N. Sheldon , Christopher V. Nagelli , April L. McPherson , Aaron J. Krych , Nathaniel A. Bates
{"title":"人工关节计与机械关节计在ACL重建患者恢复运动时记录的前膝关节松弛度的比较","authors":"Alexander H. Fischbach , Gregory D. Myer , Kim D. Barber-Foss , Nathan D. Schilaty , Alexandra N. Sheldon , Christopher V. Nagelli , April L. McPherson , Aaron J. Krych , Nathaniel A. Bates","doi":"10.1016/j.knee.2025.08.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Arthrometers are devices used to evaluate knee laxity by quantifying anterior tibiofemoral displacement. The purpose of this study was to assess the congruence of tibiofemoral displacement measurements between manual and mechanical knee arthrometers in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed (ACLR) patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This investigation evaluated 44 limbs in 22 subjects who underwent ACLR. All subjects were cleared for return to sport prior to enrollment. Participants underwent manual and mechanical arthrometer assessments of anterior knee laxity in the same visit. Both involved and uninvolved limbs were assessed. The magnitude of raw knee laxity measurements between arthrometers, inter-device associations, and rank-order significance of limb measurements were assessed. The impact of different post-operative training protocols on device measurements was also evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Mean tibiofemoral displacement measurements for involved and uninvolved limbs were comparable for the mechanical arthrometer at 134 N and manual arthrometer at 89 N (<em>P</em> = 0.33), however, mean displacement values varied significantly between the two arthrometers at 134 N (<em>P</em> < 0.01). Overall, significant associations between mechanical and manual arthrometer measurements were not observed. Rank order trended toward lower difference when comparing Side and Device (<em>P</em> > 0.06). Consilience between mechanical and manual arthrometers was not observed in this investigation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Multi-center studies or literature syntheses that incorporate more than one type of arthrometer should focus on reporting delta values as the present data demonstrated no significant repeated measures deltas between-devices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56110,"journal":{"name":"Knee","volume":"57 ","pages":"Pages 100-109"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of anterior knee laxity measurements recorded by manual versus mechanical arthrometers in ACL reconstruction patients at return to sport\",\"authors\":\"Alexander H. Fischbach , Gregory D. Myer , Kim D. Barber-Foss , Nathan D. Schilaty , Alexandra N. Sheldon , Christopher V. Nagelli , April L. McPherson , Aaron J. Krych , Nathaniel A. Bates\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.knee.2025.08.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Arthrometers are devices used to evaluate knee laxity by quantifying anterior tibiofemoral displacement. The purpose of this study was to assess the congruence of tibiofemoral displacement measurements between manual and mechanical knee arthrometers in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed (ACLR) patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This investigation evaluated 44 limbs in 22 subjects who underwent ACLR. All subjects were cleared for return to sport prior to enrollment. Participants underwent manual and mechanical arthrometer assessments of anterior knee laxity in the same visit. Both involved and uninvolved limbs were assessed. The magnitude of raw knee laxity measurements between arthrometers, inter-device associations, and rank-order significance of limb measurements were assessed. The impact of different post-operative training protocols on device measurements was also evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Mean tibiofemoral displacement measurements for involved and uninvolved limbs were comparable for the mechanical arthrometer at 134 N and manual arthrometer at 89 N (<em>P</em> = 0.33), however, mean displacement values varied significantly between the two arthrometers at 134 N (<em>P</em> < 0.01). Overall, significant associations between mechanical and manual arthrometer measurements were not observed. Rank order trended toward lower difference when comparing Side and Device (<em>P</em> > 0.06). Consilience between mechanical and manual arthrometers was not observed in this investigation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Multi-center studies or literature syntheses that incorporate more than one type of arthrometer should focus on reporting delta values as the present data demonstrated no significant repeated measures deltas between-devices.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee\",\"volume\":\"57 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 100-109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096801602500211X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096801602500211X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of anterior knee laxity measurements recorded by manual versus mechanical arthrometers in ACL reconstruction patients at return to sport
Background
Arthrometers are devices used to evaluate knee laxity by quantifying anterior tibiofemoral displacement. The purpose of this study was to assess the congruence of tibiofemoral displacement measurements between manual and mechanical knee arthrometers in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed (ACLR) patients.
Methods
This investigation evaluated 44 limbs in 22 subjects who underwent ACLR. All subjects were cleared for return to sport prior to enrollment. Participants underwent manual and mechanical arthrometer assessments of anterior knee laxity in the same visit. Both involved and uninvolved limbs were assessed. The magnitude of raw knee laxity measurements between arthrometers, inter-device associations, and rank-order significance of limb measurements were assessed. The impact of different post-operative training protocols on device measurements was also evaluated.
Results
Mean tibiofemoral displacement measurements for involved and uninvolved limbs were comparable for the mechanical arthrometer at 134 N and manual arthrometer at 89 N (P = 0.33), however, mean displacement values varied significantly between the two arthrometers at 134 N (P < 0.01). Overall, significant associations between mechanical and manual arthrometer measurements were not observed. Rank order trended toward lower difference when comparing Side and Device (P > 0.06). Consilience between mechanical and manual arthrometers was not observed in this investigation.
Conclusions
Multi-center studies or literature syntheses that incorporate more than one type of arthrometer should focus on reporting delta values as the present data demonstrated no significant repeated measures deltas between-devices.
期刊介绍:
The Knee is an international journal publishing studies on the clinical treatment and fundamental biomechanical characteristics of this joint. The aim of the journal is to provide a vehicle relevant to surgeons, biomedical engineers, imaging specialists, materials scientists, rehabilitation personnel and all those with an interest in the knee.
The topics covered include, but are not limited to:
• Anatomy, physiology, morphology and biochemistry;
• Biomechanical studies;
• Advances in the development of prosthetic, orthotic and augmentation devices;
• Imaging and diagnostic techniques;
• Pathology;
• Trauma;
• Surgery;
• Rehabilitation.