RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The pivot-shift test has become more consistent and reliable and is a meaningful outcome measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this investigation was to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the quantitative pivot shift (QPS) preoperatively, at time zero immediately after anatomic ACLR, and after 24 months as well as the relationship between PROs and the QPS. It was hypothesized that anatomic ACLR would restore rotatory stability measured by the pivot-shift test and that QPS measurements would be positively correlated with PROs. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The ACL-injured and contralateral uninjured knees from 89 of 107 (83.2%) enrolled patients at 4 international centers were evaluated using a standardized pivot-shift test. Tibial acceleration was assessed with an inertial sensor, and lateral compartment translation was measured using an image analysis system preoperatively, at time zero immediately postoperatively, and at follow-up after 2 years. PROs were assessed at 12 and 24 months postoperatively with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS), Marx activity rating scale, and activity of daily living score (ADLS). RESULTS: The mean patient age at surgery was 27 years (range, 15-45 years). A positive pivot shift preoperatively (side-to-side difference in tibial acceleration, 2.6 ± 4.0 m/s2; side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation, 2.0 ± 2.0 mm) was reduced at time zero postoperatively (side-to-side difference in tibial acceleration, -0.5 ± 1.3 m/s2; side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation, -0.1 ± 1.0 mm). All PROs improved from preoperatively to final follow-up at 24 months: from 56.5 to 85.5 points for the IKDC (P = .0001), from 28.8 to 32.4 points for the CKRS (P = .04), from 11.2 to 7.9 points for the Marx (P < .0001), and from 75.7 to 91.6 points for the ADLS (P < .0001). Neither preoperative nor time zero postoperative rotatory laxity assessed by the pivot-shift test correlated with PROs at 24-month follow-up. A graft retear was observed in 4 patients (4.5%) within 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Anatomic ACLR resulted in significantly improved and acceptable PROs at 2-year follow-up and a low failure rate. Anatomic ACLR restored QPS measurements of anterior tibial translation and tibial acceleration to those of the contralateral knee immediately after surgery while still under anesthesia, but there was no correlation between the QPS preoperatively or at time zero after ACLR and PROs at 2-year follow-up.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It is still uncertain how surgical reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is able to restore rotatory laxity of the involved joint. The desired amount of restraint applied by the ACL graft, as compared with the healthy knee, has not been fully clarified. PURPOSE: To quantify the ability of single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendons in reducing the pivot-shift phenomenon immediately after surgery under anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: An inertial sensor and image analysis were used at 4 international centers to measure tibial acceleration and lateral compartment translation of the knee, respectively. The standardized pivot-shift test was quantified in terms of the side-to-side difference in laxity both preoperatively and postoperatively with the patient under anesthesia. The reduction in both tibial acceleration and lateral compartment translation after surgery and the side-to-side difference were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Alpha was set at P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were recruited for the study, and data were available for 89 patients. There was a statistically significant reduction in quantitative rotatory knee laxity between preoperatively (inertial sensor, 2.55 ± 4.00 m/s2; image analysis, 2.04 ± 2.02 mm) and postoperatively (inertial sensor, -0.54 ± 1.25 m/s2; image analysis, -0.10 ± 1.04 mm) between the involved and healthy joints, as measured by the 2 devices (P < .001 for both). Postoperatively, both devices detected a lower rotatory laxity value in the involved joint compared with the healthy joint (inertial sensor, 2.45 ± 0.89 vs 2.99 ± 1.10 m/s2, respectively [P < .001]; image analysis, 0.99 ± 0.83 vs 1.09 ± 0.92 mm, respectively [P = .38]). CONCLUSION: The data from this study indicated a significant reduction in the pivot shift when compared side to side. Both the inertial sensor and image analysis used for the quantitative assessment of the pivot-shift test could successfully detect restoration of the pivot shift after anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Future research will examine how pivot-shift control is maintained over time and correlation of the pivot shift with return to full activity in patients with an ACL injury.
