Abstract
Clinical laxity tests are frequently used for assessing knee ligament injuries and for soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Current routine methods are highly subjective with respect to examination technique, magnitude of clinician-applied load and assessment of joint displacement. Alignment measurements generated by computer-assisted technology have led to the development of quantitative TKA soft tissue balancing algorithms. However to make the algorithms applicable in practice requires the standardisation of several parameters: knee flexion angle should be maintained to minimise the potential positional variation in ligament restraining properties; hand positioning of the examining clinician should correspond to a measured lever arm, defined as the perpendicular distance of the applied force from the rotational knee centre; accurate measurement of force applied is required to calculate the moment applied to the knee joint; resultant displacement of the knee should be quantified.
The primary aim of this study was to determine whether different clinicians could reliably assess coronal knee laxity with a standardised protocol that controlled these variables. Furthermore, a secondary question was to examine if the experience of the clinician makes a difference. We hypothesised that standardisation would result in a narrow range of laxity measurements obtained by different clinicians.
Six consultant orthopaedic surgeons, six orthopaedic trainees and six physiotherapists were instructed to assess the coronal laxity of the right knee of a healthy volunteer. Points were marked over the femoral epicondyles and the malleoli to indicate hand positioning and give a constant moment arm. The non-invasive adaptation of a commercially available image-free navigation system enabled real-time measurement of coronal and sagittal mechanical femorotibial (MFT) angles. This has been previously validated to an accuracy of ±1°. Collateral knee laxity was defined as the amount of angular displacement during a stress manoeuvre. Participants were instructed to maintain the knee joint in 2° of flexion whilst performing a varus-valgus stress test using what they perceived as an acceptable load. They were blinded to the coronal MFT angle measurements. A hand-held force application device (FAD) was then employed to allow the clinicians to apply a moment of 18Nm. This level was based on previous work to determine a suitable subject tolerance limit. They were instructed to repeat the test using the device in the palm of their right hand and to apply the force until the visual display and an auditory alarm indicated that the target had been reached. The FAD was then removed and participants were asked to repeat the clinical varus-valgus stress test, but to try and apply the same amount of force as they had been doing with the device.
Maximum MFT angular deviation was automatically recorded for each stress test and the maximum moment applied was recorded for each of the tests using the FAD. Means and standard deviations (SD) were used to compare different clinicians under the same conditions. Paired t-tests were used to measure the change in practice of groups of clinicians before, during and after use of the FAD for both varus and valgus stress tests.
All three groups of clinicians initially produced measurements of valgus laxity with consistent mean values (1.5° for physiotherapists, 1.8° for consultants and 1.6° for trainees) and standard deviations (<1°). For varus, mean values were consistent (5.9° for physiotherapists, 5.0° for consultants and 5.4° for trainees) but standard deviations were larger (0.9° to 1.6°). When using the FAD, the standard deviations remained low for all groups for both varus and valgus laxity. Introducing the FAD overall produced a significantly greater angulation in valgus (2.4° compared to 1.6°, p<0.001) but not varus (p = 0.67) when compared to the initial examination. In attempting to reach the target moment of 18Nm, the mean ‘overshoot’ was 0.9Nm for both varus and valgus tests. Standard deviations for varus laxity were lower for all groups following use of the FAD. The consultants' performance remained consistent and valgus assessment remained consistent for all groups. The only statistically significant change in practice for a group before and after use of the FAD was for the trainees testing valgus, who may have been trained to push harder (p = 0.01). Standardising the applied moment indicated that usually a lower force is applied during valgus stress testing than varus. This was re-enforced by clinicians, one third of whom commented that they felt they had to push harder for valgus than varus, despite the FAD target being the same.
We have successfully standardised the manual technique of coronal knee laxity assessment by controlling the subjective variables. The results support the hypothesis of producing a narrow range of laxity measurements but with valgus laxity appearing more consistent than varus. The incorporation of a FAD into assessment of coronal knee laxity did not affect the clinicians' ability to produce reliable and repeatable measurements, despite removing the manual perception of laxity. The FAD also provided additional information about the actual moment applied. This information may have a role in improving the balancing techniques of TKA and the management of collateral ligament injuries with regard initial diagnosis and grading as well as rehabilitation.
Finally, the results suggest that following use of the FAD, more experienced clinicians returned to applying their usual manual force, while trainees appeared to use this augmented feedback to adapt their technique. Therefore this technique could be a way to harness the experience of senior clinicians and use it to enhance the perceptive skills of more junior trainees who do not have the benefit of this knowledge.
