PURPOSE: Accurate measurement of laxity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is usually performed with the KT-1000 arthrometer, and reproducibility and reliability are discussed. A new arthrometer, the GNRB(®), has been recently developed in an attempt to improve intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility. The aim of this diagnostic study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of the GNRB(®) and the KT-1000. METHODS: Three protocols were designed to evaluate and compare the two arthrometers. Fifteen physiotherapists conducted tests on 15 subjects with healthy knees. The intra- and inter-reproducibility of the two tests were compared by analysis of variance and the F-test. RESULTS: Measure reproducibility was significantly worst with the KT-1000 than with the GNRB(®) (machine effect, P < 0.001) regardless of operator experience. There was no significant difference between experienced and inexperienced examiners with the GNRB(®) (no 'examiners effect'). Regardless of the machine, there was a 'side effect' with healthy knees. CONCLUSION: This clinical study demonstrates the superior intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of the GNRB(®) over the KT-1000. There appears to be some technological advantages to using the GNRB(®) including pressure control of the patella, accuracy of the displacement transducer, control of the load on the calf, and control of hamstring activity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level I.
PURPOSE: Accurate measurement of laxity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is usually performed with the KT-1000 arthrometer, and reproducibility and reliability are discussed. A new arthrometer, the GNRB(®), has been recently developed in an attempt to improve intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility. The aim of this diagnostic study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of the GNRB(®) and the KT-1000. METHODS: Three protocols were designed to evaluate and compare the two arthrometers. Fifteen physiotherapists conducted tests on 15 subjects with healthy knees. The intra- and inter-reproducibility of the two tests were compared by analysis of variance and the F-test. RESULTS: Measure reproducibility was significantly worst with the KT-1000 than with the GNRB(®) (machine effect, P < 0.001) regardless of operator experience. There was no significant difference between experienced and inexperienced examiners with the GNRB(®) (no 'examiners effect'). Regardless of the machine, there was a 'side effect' with healthy knees. CONCLUSION: This clinical study demonstrates the superior intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of the GNRB(®) over the KT-1000. There appears to be some technological advantages to using the GNRB(®) including pressure control of the patella, accuracy of the displacement transducer, control of the load on the calf, and control of hamstring activity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, Level I.
Authors: J Berry; K Kramer; J Binkley; G A Binkley; P Stratford; S Hunter; K Brown Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Rashid Khan; Arpad Konyves; K R Boddu Siva Rama; Rhidian Thomas; Andrew A Amis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Luke Pugh; Randy Mascarenhas; Shalinder Arneja; Patrick Y K Chin; Jordan M Leith Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: C Mouton; D Theisen; T Meyer; H Agostinis; C Nührenbörger; D Pape; R Seil Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Jerome Murgier; Jean Sebastien Béranger; Philippe Boisrenoult; Camille Steltzlen; Nicolas Pujol Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 3.075