Diagnostic Tools for Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: GNRB, Lachman Test, and Telos
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of the GNRB arthrometer (Genourob), Lachman test, and Telos device (GmbH) in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and to evaluate the accuracy of each diagnostic tool according to the length of time from injury to examination.Materials and Methods: From September 2015 to September 2016, 40 cases of complete ACL rupture were reviewed. We divided the time from injury to examination into three periods of 10 days each and analyzed the diagnostic tools according to the time frame.Results: An analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic curve showed that all diagnostic tools were fairly informative. The GNRB showed a higher AUC than other diagnostic tools. In 10 cases assessed within 10 days after injury, the GNRB showed statistically significant side-to-side difference in laxity (p<0.001), whereas the Telos test and Lachman test did not show significantly different laxity (p=0.541 and p=0.413, respectively).Conclusions: All diagnostic values of the GNRB were better than other diagnostic tools in acute ACL injuries. The GNRB was more effective in acute ACL injuries examined within 10 days of injury. The GNRB arthrometer can be a useful diagnostic tool for acute ACL injuries.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of the GNRB arthrometer (Genourob), Lachman test, and Telos device (GmbH) in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and to evaluate the accuracy of each diagnostic tool according to the length of time from injury to examination.Materials and Methods: From September 2015 to September 2016, 40 cases of complete ACL rupture were reviewed. We divided the time from injury to examination into three periods of 10 days each and analyzed the diagnostic tools according to the time frame.Results: An analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic curve showed that all diagnostic tools were fairly informative. The GNRB showed a higher AUC than other diagnostic tools. In 10 cases assessed within 10 days after injury, the GNRB showed statistically significant side-to-side difference in laxity (p<0.001), whereas the Telos test and Lachman test did not show significantly different laxity (p=0.541 and p=0.413, respectively).Conclusions: All diagnostic values of the GNRB were better than other diagnostic tools in acute ACL injuries. The GNRB was more effective in acute ACL injuries examined within 10 days of injury. The GNRB arthrometer can be a useful diagnostic tool for acute ACL injuries.
참고문헌 (18)
- Gianotti SM, "Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: a national population-based study", J Sci Med Sport, 12, pp.622~627 (2009)[DOI]
- Perera NS, "Anterior cruciate ligament rupture: delay to diagnosis", Injury, 44, pp.1862~1865 (2013)[DOI]
- Bollen SR, "Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: a quiet epidemic?", Injury, 27, pp.407~409 (1996)[DOI]
- Wang JH, "Efficacy of knee joint aspiration in patients with acute ACL injury in the emergency department", Injury, 47, pp.1744~1749 (2016)[DOI]
- Jorn LP, "Simultaneous measurements of sagittal knee laxity with an external device and radiostereometric analysis", J Bone Joint Surg Br, 80, pp.169~172 (1998)[DOI]
- Lerat JL, "A comparison of pre-operative evaluation of anterior knee laxity by dynamic X-rays and by the arthrometer KT 1000", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 1, pp.54~59 (1993)[DOI]
- Wiertsema SH, "Reliability of the KT1000 arthrometer and the Lachman test in patients with an ACL rupture", Knee, 15, pp.107~110 (2008)[DOI]
- Benvenuti JF, "Objective assessment of the anterior tibial translation in Lachman test position: comparison between three types of measurement", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 6, pp.215~219 (1998)[DOI]
- Beldame J, "Anterior knee laxity measurement: comparison of passive stress radiographs Telos((R)) and Lerat and GNRB((R)) arthrometer", Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 98, pp.744~750 (2012)[DOI]
- Bouguennec N, "Comparative reproducibility of <TEX>$TELOS^{TM}$<", TEX> and <TEX>$GNRB^{(R)}$<, Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, pp.2015, 101[DOI]
- Robert H, "A new knee arthrometer, the GNRB: experience in ACL complete and partial tears", Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 95, pp.171~176 (2009)[DOI]
- Schweitzer ME, "Medial collateral ligament injuries: evaluation of multiple signs, prevalence and location of associated bone bruises, and assessment with MR imaging", Radiology, 194, pp.825~829 (1995)[DOI]
- Swets JA, "Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems", Science, 240, pp.1285~1293 (1988)[DOI]
- Jenny JY, "Anterior knee laxity measurement using stress radiographs and the GNRB((R)) system versus intraoperative navigation", Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 99(6 Suppl), pp.S297~S300 (2013)[DOI]
- Vauhnil R, "Reliability between examiners for the GNRB knee arthrometer", West Kyushu J Rehabil Sci, 5, pp.11~14 (2015)
- Lefevre N, "Validity of <TEX>$GNRB^{(R)}$<", TEX> arthrometer compared to <TEX>$Telos^{TM}$<, Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, pp.2014, 22[DOI]
- Wojtys EM, "A gender-related difference in the contribution of the knee musculature to sagittal-plane shear stiffness in subjects with similar knee laxity", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 84, pp.10~16 (2002)[DOI]
- Sharma L, "Laxity in healthy and osteoarthritic knees", Arthritis Rheum, 42, pp.861~870 (1999)[DOI]