ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Various technologies have been developed to quantify the pivot shift, as it is regarded as a key indicator of anterolateral rotatory laxity of the knee. PURPOSE: To determine the usefulness of a commercially available triaxial accelerometer (Kinematic Rapid Assessment [KiRA]) in numerically quantifying the pivot shift in patients under anesthesia with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Both knees of 50 patients (26 male [mean age, 30.4 years], 24 female [mean age, 26.6 years]) under anesthesia were assessed immediately before unilateral ACL reconstruction by an orthopaedic fellow and 1 of 3 experienced knee surgeons. The pivot-shift grade and 2 KiRA outputs (range of acceleration and slope of acceleration change) were compared. RESULTS: The surgeon and fellow recorded the same pivot-shift grade for 45 of 50 patients (90%). Data from the 5 patients with no agreement and 1 patient with extreme outlying data were excluded from subsequent analysis. Using the KiRA range and slope data, the surgeon identified the injured knee in 74% and 76% of patients, respectively, while the fellow's rate of injured knee identification was 74% and 80%, respectively. A correlation could be found only between pivot-shift grade and surgeon-derived range data (ρ = 0.40; P < .01) but not slope data or any fellow-derived outputs. Using the surgeon-derived range data, there was a significant difference between a grade 3 pivot (>5 m/s2) and a grade 1 or 2 pivot (<5 m/s2) (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Although a correlation between KiRA output data and pivot-shift grade was found when the device was used by an experienced surgeon, there was no correlation when used by a well-trained but less experienced orthopaedic fellow. Furthermore, the KiRA output data identified the ACL-deficient knee correctly in only 74% of patients. Although a threshold acceleration range value could be identified, above which the value was associated with a grade 3 pivot shift, this was dependent on the examiner, and distinction between other grades could not be made.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture commonly occurs in conjunction with articular cartilage injury. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate rehabilitation which should be carried out for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and the surgical management of articular cartilage lesions of the knee. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the recommended rehabilitation protocol for patients undergoing ACLR with concomitant articular cartilage injury with a view to develop guidelines on the most appropriate treatment. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched five database for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative and retrospective cohort studies (CS) describing the management of concomitant ACL rupture and articular cartilage injury and the postoperative rehabilitation regimen. Risk of bias was performed using a modified Downs & Black's checklist. The primary outcome was specific rehabilitation protocols including weight-bearing status, immobilisation, continuous passive motion (CPM), and return to play criteria. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. A best evidence synthesis was performed. RESULTS: The review yielded six studies which reported on rehabilitation techniques. All studies were of low methodological quality. There was considerable variability in not only the chondral lesion reported but also the treatment techniques utilised and especially the rehabilitation regimes. No consensus was found on weight-bearing status, postoperative immobilisation, the use of CPM, or return to play criteria. Given the quality of the papers, there was no evidence to recommend any specific rehabilitation regime in the postoperative management of concomitant ACLR and articular cartilage lesions. CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed that despite how common concomitant ACL rupture and articular cartilage injury is, there is no evidence to support one, most appropriate rehabilitation protocol. From a clinical perspective, decisions on postoperative rehabilitation for patients undergoing ACLR and treatment of articular cartilage lesions should be made on a case-by-case basis with criteria-based progression until more robust evidence becomes available. A list of specific rehabilitation protocols based on the cartilage restoration technique is provided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
