PURPOSE: Studies have reported that knee kinematics and rotational laxity are not restored to native levels following traditional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This has led to the development of anatomic ACL reconstruction, which aims to restore native knee kinematics and long-term knee health by replicating normal anatomy as much as possible. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of current dynamic knee laxity measurement devices with the purpose of investigating the significance of dynamic laxity measurement of the knee. Gait analysis is not included. METHODS: The subject was discussed with experts in the field in order to perform a level V review. MEDLINE was searched according to the discussions for relevant articles using multiple different search terms. All found abstracts were read and scanned for relevance to the subject. The reference lists of the relevant articles were searched for additional articles related to the subject. RESULTS: There are a variety of techniques reported to measure dynamic laxity of the knee. Technical development of methods is one important part toward better understanding of knee kinematics. Validation of devices has shown to be difficult due to the lack of gold standard. Different studies use various methods to examine different components of dynamic laxity, which makes comparisons between studies challenging. CONCLUSION: Several devices can be used to evaluate dynamic laxity of the knee. At the present time, the devices are continuously under development. Future implementation should include primary basic research, including validation and reliability testing, as well as part of individualized surgery and clinical follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level V.
PURPOSE: Studies have reported that knee kinematics and rotational laxity are not restored to native levels following traditional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This has led to the development of anatomic ACL reconstruction, which aims to restore native knee kinematics and long-term knee health by replicating normal anatomy as much as possible. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of current dynamic knee laxity measurement devices with the purpose of investigating the significance of dynamic laxity measurement of the knee. Gait analysis is not included. METHODS: The subject was discussed with experts in the field in order to perform a level V review. MEDLINE was searched according to the discussions for relevant articles using multiple different search terms. All found abstracts were read and scanned for relevance to the subject. The reference lists of the relevant articles were searched for additional articles related to the subject. RESULTS: There are a variety of techniques reported to measure dynamic laxity of the knee. Technical development of methods is one important part toward better understanding of knee kinematics. Validation of devices has shown to be difficult due to the lack of gold standard. Different studies use various methods to examine different components of dynamic laxity, which makes comparisons between studies challenging. CONCLUSION: Several devices can be used to evaluate dynamic laxity of the knee. At the present time, the devices are continuously under development. Future implementation should include primary basic research, including validation and reliability testing, as well as part of individualized surgery and clinical follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level V.
Authors: Sveinbjörn Brandsson; Jon Karlsson; Leif Swärd; Jüri Kartus; Bengt I Eriksson; Johan Kärrholm Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Martin Logan; Edward Dunstan; James Robinson; Andrew Williams; Wady Gedroyc; Michael Freeman Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Apr-May Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman; Karen K Briggs; William I Sterett; Richard J Hawkins Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Apr-May Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Guoan Li; Jeremy M Moses; Ramprasad Papannagari; Neil P Pathare; Louis E DeFrate; Thomas J Gill Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jonas Isberg; Eva Faxén; Gauti Laxdal; Bengt I Eriksson; Johan Kärrholm; Jon Karlsson Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Per Henrik Borgstrom; Keith L Markolf; Brock Foster; Frank A Petrigliano; David R McAllister Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Ata A Rahnemai-Azar; Jan-Hendrik Naendrup; Ashish Soni; Adam Olsen; Jason Zlotnicki; Volker Musahl Journal: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med Date: 2016-06
Authors: Frank A Petrigliano; Per Henrik Borgstrom; William J Kaiser; David R McAllister; Keith L Markolf Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-05-11 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Martin Zens; Philipp Niemeyer; Anke Bernstein; Matthias J Feucht; Jan Kühle; Norbert P Südkamp; Peter Woias; Herrmann O Mayr Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.342