PURPOSE: Recently, different measurement systems have been developed to quantitatively measure the pivot shift in vivo. These systems lack validation and a large inter-examiner variability for the manually performed pivot shift test exists. The purpose of this study was to perform objective measurements of the pivot shift using three different measurement devices and to examine the correlation of the measurements with clinical grading of the pivot shift. METHODS: A cadaver knee on a whole lower body specimen was prepared to display a high-grade pivot shift. The pivot shift tests were performed three times by 12 blinded expert surgeons using their preferred technique. Simultaneous data samplings were recorded using three different measurement devices: (1) electromagnetic tracking system using bone-attached and skin-fixed sensors, respectively, (2) triaxial accelerometer system, and (3) simple image analysis. The surgeons graded the knee clinically using pivot shift grades I-III. Correlations were calculated using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The expert surgeons average clinical grading was 2.3 (SD ± 0.5). Clinical grading displayed best correlation with the acceleration of reduction as measured by electromagnetic tracking system with bone-attached sensors (r = 0.67, P < 0.05). Similar correlation coefficient was found for the acceleration of reduction (r = 0.58, P = 0.05) and the "jerk" component of acceleration (r = 0.61, P < 0.05) measured by means of the triaxial accelerometer system. CONCLUSION: The pivot shift can be quantified by several in vivo measurement devices. Best correlation with clinical grading was found with tibial acceleration parameters. Future studies will have to analyze how quantitative parameters can be utilized to standardize clinical grading of the pivot shift. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level II.
PURPOSE: Recently, different measurement systems have been developed to quantitatively measure the pivot shift in vivo. These systems lack validation and a large inter-examiner variability for the manually performed pivot shift test exists. The purpose of this study was to perform objective measurements of the pivot shift using three different measurement devices and to examine the correlation of the measurements with clinical grading of the pivot shift. METHODS: A cadaver knee on a whole lower body specimen was prepared to display a high-grade pivot shift. The pivot shift tests were performed three times by 12 blinded expert surgeons using their preferred technique. Simultaneous data samplings were recorded using three different measurement devices: (1) electromagnetic tracking system using bone-attached and skin-fixed sensors, respectively, (2) triaxial accelerometer system, and (3) simple image analysis. The surgeons graded the knee clinically using pivot shift grades I-III. Correlations were calculated using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The expert surgeons average clinical grading was 2.3 (SD ± 0.5). Clinical grading displayed best correlation with the acceleration of reduction as measured by electromagnetic tracking system with bone-attached sensors (r = 0.67, P < 0.05). Similar correlation coefficient was found for the acceleration of reduction (r = 0.58, P = 0.05) and the "jerk" component of acceleration (r = 0.61, P < 0.05) measured by means of the triaxial accelerometer system. CONCLUSION: The pivot shift can be quantified by several in vivo measurement devices. Best correlation with clinical grading was found with tibial acceleration parameters. Future studies will have to analyze how quantitative parameters can be utilized to standardize clinical grading of the pivot shift. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level II.
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: David R Labbe; Jacques A de Guise; Neila Mezghani; Véronique Godbout; Guy Grimard; David Baillargeon; Patrick Lavigne; Julio Fernandes; Pierre Ranger; Nicola Hagemeister Journal: J Biomech Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Timo Järvelä; Anna-Stina Moisala; Raine Sihvonen; Sally Järvelä; Pekka Kannus; Markku Järvinen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 6.202
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: Mark P Sena; Ryan DellaMaggioria; Jeffrey C Lotz; Brian T Feeley Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Carola F van Eck; Miette Loopik; Michel P van den Bekerom; Freddie H Fu; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: David R Labbé; Di Li; Guy Grimard; Jacques A de Guise; Nicola Hagemeister Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 4.342