Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are immediately disabling, costly, take a significant amount of time to rehabilitate, and are associated with an increased risk of developing posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Specific multiplanar movement patterns of the lower extremity, such as those associated with the drop vertical jump (DVJ) test, have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of suffering noncontact ACL injuries. The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) has been developed as a tool that can be applied to identify individuals who display at-risk movement patterns during the DVJ.
Hypothesis: An increase in LESS score is associated with an increased risk of noncontact ACL injury.
Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: Over a 3-year interval, 5047 high school and college participants performed preseason DVJ tests that were recorded using commercial video cameras. All participants were followed for ACL injury during their sports season, and video data from injured participants and matched controls were then assessed with the LESS. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between LESS score and ACL injury risk in all participants as well as subgroups of female, male, high school, and college participants.
Results: There was no relationship between the risk of suffering ACL injury and LESS score whether measured as a continuous or a categorical variable. This was the case for all participants combined (odds ratio, 1.04 per unit increase in LESS score; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.35) as well as within each subgroup (odds ratio range, 0.99-1.14).
Conclusion: The LESS did not predict ACL injury in our cohort of high school and college athletes.
Background: The Lachman and pivot-shift tests are 2 standard manual tests to diagnose anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insufficiency. However, the global variation of these testing procedures is not known.
Purpose: To survey currently used testing techniques and to measure the knee movement during manual tests among various expert surgeons from across the globe.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Part 1: descriptive survey. A questionnaire asking about testing procedures of Lachman and pivot-shift tests was conducted among 33 ACL surgeons. Part 2: knee kinematics comparison. Lachman and pivot-shift tests were performed on a unilateral ACL-injured patient by 5 surgeons, while knee kinematics was recorded by an electromagnetic system. Tibial translation was measured during the Lachman test, while tibial translation, rotation, and pivot-shift acceleration were calculated during the pivot-shift test.
Results: Part 1: Tibial anterior drawer by a medially placed hand was widely advocated for the Lachman test. Flexion type of the pivot-shift test maneuver was supported by two thirds, while extension type was supported by one third. However, the “feeling” of subluxation or reduction during the pivot shift was the primary evaluation method used by the vast majority of surgeons. Part 2: Increased tibial translation during the Lachman test was observed in the ACL-injured knee with significant variation between examiners (P < .01). Tibial translation and pivot-shift acceleration during the pivot-shift test increased in the ACL-injured side (P < .01), but tibial rotation was too diverse to find any trend (P = .31). Tibial translation and acceleration of the pivot shift in the ACL-injured knee showed no significant difference between examiners (P > .05).
Conclusion: The Lachman test can display a wide variation of actual movement despite maneuver similarity, while the pivot-shift test could possibly be measurable by tibial translation and/or acceleration beyond their procedural variation.
Clinical Relevance: We should recognize the limitations of these manual tests and the possibilities of their objective measurement.
