Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: The quantification of posterior knee laxity is crucial in the evaluation of injuries to the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) as it has important implications to the treatment for these injuries. The objective of this study was to compare the test results of stress radiography and instrumented drawer testing (Rolimeter) for the assessment of posterior knee laxity in patients with PCL injury.
Methods: In 45 patients with an injury to the PCL, lateral radiographs of both knees were obtained under anterior and posterior tibial load (150 N) using a standardized approach. Patients with injury of the ACL to either knee were excluded from the study. During the same clinic visit, an instrumented measurement of anterior-posterior knee laxity was performed at 90° of knee flexion by an experienced examiner using the Rolimeter device. The mean side-to-side differences (SSD) of both (radiographic and instrumented) measurements were compared to each other, and the correlation was calculated using the Pearson coefficient.
Results: The SSD (affected/healthy side) of posterior translation determined from the radiographs was 8.2 ± 3.2 mm, and the SSD of the instrumented measurement testing was 7.6 ± 3.2 mm. The mean difference between radiographic and Rolimeter test results was 1.8 ± 1.5 mm. The Pearson's correlation coefficient revealed a good correlation between both measurements of 0.74.
Conclusions: It may be suggested by the results of this study that under the absence of an ACL injury and a fixed posterior drawer sign, the Rolimeter is a suitable tool to assess the posterior laxity of the knee in the clinical setting. Its advantages are the absence of radiation to the patient, its availability, and the low cost. Therefore, the Rolimeter device may serve as a valuable alternative to stress radiography in the evaluation of PCL-injured patients.
Level Of Evidence: II.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2901-0 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!