Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Much of what we know, or think we know, about knee kinematics and how injury and surgical intervention affect knee kinematics is based on biomechanical studies of cadavers [11]. For example, the effects of new surgical techniques, such as anatomic ACL reconstruction, were evaluated by robotic biomechanical testing [21] prior to widespread clinical adoption.
Cadaver-based biomechanical studies use a robot to apply precise kinematics or loads [20], but typically the loads and loading rate are much less than during athletic activities. In contrast, impact simulators can apply large loads at high rates [5], however, the kinematics may not replicate in vivo activities. A limitation of all cadaver-based studies is that they cannot account for changes over time after injury or surgery, such as ligament healing and neuromuscular adaptation. Conventional motion capture, using reflective markers or inertial measurement units (IMUs), can measure changes in in vivo knee kinematics after injury or surgery, however, all measurements systems that attach sensors directly to the skin are impaired by soft tissue artifact (i.e. the relative motion between the skin and underlying bones) [15] which can be 35% to 65% of the true translation and rotation of the underlying bone [6] rendering those techniques inappropriate for clinical evaluation of joint kinematics after surgical procedures.
Dynamic biplane radiography (DBR) has emerged as a viable technology to accurately measure in vivo knee kinematics during activities of daily living and athletic activities. DBR can measure knee kinematics with an accuracy of about 1° in rotation and better than 1 mm in translation without soft tissue artifact [3]. Advantages of DBR over cadaver-based biomechanics studies are that kinematics can be measured under loading conditions that replicate activities of daily living or athletic activities, and that the effects of healing and neuromuscular adaptations can be assessed. The high accuracy of DBR measurements improves musculoskeletal models that predict tissue loading [7] and make it possible to measure the effects of injury, surgical intervention and rehabilitation on articular cartilage contact mechanics (combined DBR plus MRI) [2, 9] that may be related to the development of osteoarthritis [4]. The high accuracy also makes it possible to identify kinematics changes due to injury, intervention and healing using fewer subjects than are needed when using conventional motion capture.
In a recent consensus statement by the Panther ACL consensus group [18] outcomes after ACL treatment were divided into four general categories—early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), ACL failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. With regards to measuring knee function, the group achieved 100% agreement for the recommendation that clinical assessment of ACL injury treatment should include measures of anteroposterior and rotatory knee laxity. In this regard, the current gold standard of knee laxity measurement is dynamic biplane radiography to measure in vivo knee kinematics.
DBR exposes research participants to additional radiation exposure, so care must be taken to limit the sample size to minimize overall risk of the research study. Biplane radiography studies are also expensive and time consuming. These costs are one reason previous biplane radiography studies of knee kinematics typically include a small number of participants (10 to 20) who are often imaged at only one-time point [10, 12, 16]. To date, the largest published studies on knee kinematics using biplane radiography included 74 patients who received knee arthroplasty [13] and 49 patients who received ACL-reconstruction [1]. Given the high accuracy, increased availability, and continuous improvements in capabilities, novel data will continue to emerge from DBR research to improve our understanding of the in vivo effects of injury and surgical intervention on knee kinematics and pathology.
Two recent studies employed DBR in randomized clinical trials to measure knee kinematics and cartilage contact patterns. Tashman et al. investigated single bundle vs. double-bundle ACL-reconstruction (ACL-R) for their effects on knee kinematics following healing at 2 years [14, 19]. The authors were able to show that both techniques led to the restoration of translational and rotational kinematics, which the authors attributed to the anatomic technique that was utilized in both techniques. Chiba et al. compared ACL-R to ACL-R plus lateral extraarticular tenodesis (LET) [8, 17]. Results from that trial suggest that the addition of LET may affect sagittal knee kinematics and cartilage contact patterns during running in the early post-operative phase (6 months), but those effects are lost in the longer term (12 months). These results suggest that healing and neuromuscular adaptation may occur and diminish the effect of LET over time.
Advancements in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy will most certainly have to include large-scale clinical trials that are randomized with an appropriate control group. Additionally, these clinical trials will have to be supplemented with smaller scale kinematic studies that are both in vivo (i.e. testing on consented patients rather than cadaver specimens) and provide information on the function of the joint and the applied surgical technique. The combination of the two, clinical and in vivo biomechanical studies, will prove to be most powerful and will ultimately aid in improving the outcome for patients being treated for injuries related to Orthopaedic Sports Medicine.
Abbreviations
- ACL:
-
Anterior cruciate ligament
- DBR:
-
Dynamic biplane radiography
- IMUs:
-
Inertial measurement units
- LET:
-
Lateral extraarticular tenodesis
- PROs:
-
Patient-reported outcomes
References
Akpinar B, Thorhauer E, Irrgang JJ, Tashman S, Fu FH, Anderst WJ (2018) Alteration of knee kinematics after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is dependent on associated meniscal injury. Am J Sports Med 46:1158–1165
Akpinar B, Thorhauer E, Tashman S, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Anderst WJ (2019) Tibiofemoral cartilage contact differences between level walking and downhill running. Orthop J Sports Med 7:2325967119836164
Anderst W, Zauel R, Bishop J, Demps E, Tashman S (2009) Validation of three-dimensional model-based tibio-femoral tracking during running. Med Eng Phys 31:10–16
Andriacchi TP, Mündermann A, Smith RL, Alexander EJ, Dyrby CO, Koo S (2004) A framework for the in vivo pathomechanics of osteoarthritis at the knee. Ann Biomed Eng 32:447–457
Bates NA, Schilaty ND, Nagelli CV, Krych AJ, Hewett TE (2017) Novel mechanical impact simulator designed to generate clinically relevant anterior cruciate ligament ruptures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 44:36–44
Benoit DL, Damsgaard M, Andersen MS (2015) Surface marker cluster translation, rotation, scaling and deformation: their contribution to soft tissue artefact and impact on knee joint kinematics. J Biomech 48:2124–2129
Charles JP, Fu FH, Anderst WJ (2021) Predictions of anterior cruciate ligament dynamics from subject-specific musculoskeletal models and dynamic biplane radiography. J Biomech Eng 143:031006
Chiba D, Gale T, Nishida K, Suntaxi F, Lesniak BP, Fu FH, Anderst W, Musahl V (2021) Lateral extra-articular tenodesis contributes little to change in vivo kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 49:1803–1812
DeFrate LE, Sun H, Gill TJ, Rubash HE, Li G (2004) In vivo tibiofemoral contact analysis using 3D MRI-based knee models. J Biomech 37:1499–1504
Englander ZA, Garrett WE, Spritzer CE, DeFrate LE (2020) In vivo attachment site to attachment site length and strain of the ACL and its bundles during the full gait cycle measured by MRI and high-speed biplanar radiography. J Biomech 98:109443
Fujie H, Mabuchi K, Woo SL, Livesay GA, Arai S, Tsukamoto Y (1993) The use of robotics technology to study human joint kinematics: a new methodology. J Biomech Eng 115:211–217
Gale T, Anderst W (2020) Knee kinematics of healthy adults measured using biplane radiography. J Biomech Eng 142:101004
Gray HA, Guan S, Young TJ, Dowsey MM, Choong PF, Pandy MG (2020) Comparison of posterior-stabilized, cruciate-retaining, and medial-stabilized knee implant motion during gait. J Orthop Res 38:1753–1768
Irrgang JJ, Tashman S, Patterson CG, Musahl V, West R, Oostdyk A, Galvin B, Poploski K, Fu FH (2021) Anatomic single vs. double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a randomized clinical trial-Part 1: clinical outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:2665–2675
Leardini A, Chiari L, Della Croce U, Cappozzo A (2005) Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait Posture 21:212–225
Nagai K, Gale T, Chiba D, Su F, Fu F, Anderst W (2019) The complex relationship between in vivo ACL elongation and knee kinematics during walking and running. J Orthop Res 37:1920–1928
Nishida K, Gale T, Chiba D, Suntaxi F, Lesniak B, Fu F, Anderst W, Musahl V (2021) The effect of lateral extra-articular tenodesis on in vivo cartilage contact in combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06480-4
Svantesson E, Hamrin Senorski E, Webster KE, Karlsson J, Diermeier T, Rothrauff BB, Meredith SJ, Rauer T, Irrgang JJ, Spindler KP, Ma CB, Musahl V (2020) Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injury clinical outcomes consensus group. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28:2415–2434
Tashman S, Zandiyeh P, Irrgang JJ, Musahl V, West RV, Shah N, Fu FH (2021) Anatomic single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction both restore dynamic knee function: a randomized clinical trial-part II: knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:2676–2683
Woo SL, Debski RE, Wong EK, Yagi M, Tarinelli D (1999) Use of robotic technology for diathrodial joint research. J Sci Med Sport 2:283–297
Yagi M, Wong EK, Kanamori A, Debski RE, Fu FH, Woo SL-Y (2002) Biomechanical analysis of an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 30:660–666
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors have contributed equally.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderst, W., Irrgang, J.J., Fu, F.H. et al. In search of a gold standard for objective clinical outcome: using dynamic biplane radiography to measure knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30, 1499–1501 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06781-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06781-8