Assessment of knee laxity using a robotic testing device: a comparison to the manual clinical knee examination.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to collect knee laxity data using a robotic testing device. The data collected were then compared to the results obtained from manual clinical examination. METHODS: Two human cadavers were studied. A medial collateral ligament (MCL) tear was simulated in the left knee of cadaver 1, and a posterolateral corner (PLC) injury was simulated in the right knee of cadaver 2. Contralateral knees were left intact. Five blinded examiners carried out manual clinical examination on the knees. Laxity grades and a diagnosis were recorded. Using a robotic knee device which can measure knee laxity in three planes of motion: anterior-posterior, internal-external tibia rotation, and varus-valgus, quantitative data were obtained to document tibial motion relative to the femur. RESULTS: One of the five examiners correctly diagnosed the MCL injury. Robotic testing showed a 1.7° larger valgus angle, 3° greater tibial internal rotation, and lower endpoint stiffness (11.1 vs. 24.6 Nm/°) in the MCL-injured knee during varus-valgus testing when compared to the intact knee and 4.9 mm greater medial tibial translation during rotational testing. Two of the five examiners correctly diagnosed the PLC injury, while the other examiners diagnosed an MCL tear. The PLC-injured knee demonstrated 4.1 mm more lateral tibial translation and 2.2 mm more posterior tibial translation during varus-valgus testing when compared to the intact knee. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic testing device was able to provide objective numerical data that reflected differences between the injured knees and the uninjured knees in both cadavers. The examiners that performed the manual clinical examination on the cadaver knees proved to be poor at diagnosing the injuries. Robotic testing could act as an adjunct to the manual clinical examination by supplying numbers that could improve diagnosis of knee injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

The use of a robotic tibial rotation device and an electromagnetic tracking system to accurately reproduce the clinical dial test.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine whether a robotic tibial rotation device and an electromagnetic tracking system could accurately reproduce the clinical dial test at 30° of knee flexion; (2) compare rotation data captured at the footplates of the robotic device to tibial rotation data measured using an electromagnetic sensor on the proximal tibia. METHODS: Thirty-two unilateral ACL-reconstructed patients were examined using a robotic tibial rotation device that mimicked the dial test. The data reported in this study is only from the healthy legs of these patients. Torque was applied through footplates and was measured using servomotors. Lower leg motion was measured at the foot using the motors. Tibial motion was also measured through an electromagnetic tracking system and a sensor on the proximal tibia. Load-deformation curves representing rotational motion of the foot and tibia were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Off-axis motions including medial-lateral translation and anterior-posterior translation were also measured using the electromagnetic system. RESULTS: The robotic device and electromagnetic system were able to provide axial rotation data and translational data for the tibia during the dial test. Motion measured at the foot was not correlated to motion of the tibial tubercle in internal rotation or in external rotation. The position of the tibial tubercle was 26.9° ± 11.6° more internally rotated than the foot at torque 0 Nm. Medial-lateral translation and anterior-posterior translation were combined to show the path of the tubercle in the coronal plane during tibial rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The information captured during a manual dial test includes both rotation of the tibia and proximal tibia translation. All of this information can be captured using a robotic tibial axial rotation device with an electromagnetic tracking system. The pathway of the tibial tubercle during tibial axial rotation can provide additional information about knee instability without relying on side-to-side comparison between knees. The translation of the proximal tibia is important information that must be considered in addition to axial rotation of the tibia when performing a dial test whether done manually or with a robotic device. Instrumented foot position cannot provide the same information. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.