Background Vertical jump highs are used to quantify performance in the lower extremities. The aim of this study was to validate a wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU) for purpose of estimating countermovement jump height using the following methods: numerical double integration (NDI), takeoff velocity (TOV) and flight-time (FT). Methods Fifteen students each performed three jumps in two different sessions, four weeks apart. Jump-heights calculated from motion capture and force plate were used as gold standard for global IMU position and center of mass (CoM) displacement, respectively. Results The NDI method showed higher estimates for global position (1.39 cm, p = 0.025), and for CoM displacement (4.20 cm, p < 0.001). Narrow limits of agreements (LoA) were found (<4.8 cm). Further, a low tolerance level of determining equivalence (delta) between the two sessions regarding both global and CoM displacement (±2.80 and ± 2.90 cm) suggesting reasonable test-retest reliability. Similar bias was found for TOV and FT (p < 0.015) and wide LoAs were found for global position and for CoM displacement (TOV: ±7.05 and ± 9.36 cm, AT: ±9.27 and ± 8.49 cm). Further, high delta between the two sessions (TOV: ±3.50 cm, FT ±4.00 cm) showed poor test-retest reliability. Conclusion Estimation of countermovement jump height using an IMU leads to the most accurate measurements applying the NDI-method. Countermovement jump estimated with an IMU can reliably evaluate functional performance in the lower extremities in young or in sports active patients after surgery or after rehabilitation. Countermovement jump with an IMU allows performing the test without a force plate and thus serves as an objective outcome measure in clinical practice.

Background:An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture often occurs during rotational trauma to the knee and may be associated with damage to extracapsular knee rotation–stabilizing structures such as the anterolateral ligament (ALL).Purpose:To investigate ex vivo knee laxity in 6 degrees of freedom with and without ALL reconstruction as a supplement to ACL reconstruction.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:Cadaveric knees (N = 8) were analyzed using dynamic radiostereometry during a controlled pivotlike dynamic movement simulated by motorized knee flexion (0° to 60°) with 4-N·m internal rotation torque. We tested the cadaveric specimens in 5 successive ligament situations: intact, ACL lesion, ACL + ALL lesion, ACL reconstruction, and ACL + ALL reconstruction. Anatomic single-bundle reconstruction methods were used for both the ACL and the ALL, with a bone-tendon quadriceps autograft and gracilis tendon autograft, respectively. Three-dimensional kinematics and articular surface interactions were used to determine knee laxity.Results:For the entire knee flexion motion, an ACL + ALL lesion increased the mean knee laxity (P < .005) for internal rotation (2.54°), anterior translation (1.68 mm), and varus rotation (0.53°). Augmented ALL reconstruction reduced knee laxity for anterior translation (P = .003) and varus rotation (P = .047) compared with ACL + ALL–deficient knees. Knees with ACL + ALL lesions had more internal rotation (P < .001) and anterior translation (P < .045) at knee flexion angles below 40° and 30°, respectively, compared with healthy knees. Combined ACL + ALL reconstruction did not completely restore native kinematics/laxity at flexion angles below 10° for anterior translation and below 20° for internal rotation (P < .035). ACL + ALL reconstruction was not found to overconstrain the knee joint.Conclusion:Augmented ALL reconstruction with ACL reconstruction in a cadaveric setting reduces internal rotation, varus rotation, and anterior translation knee laxity similar to knee kinematics with intact ligaments, except at knee flexion angles between 0° and 20°.Clinical Relevance:Patients with ACL injuries can potentially achieve better results with augmented ALL reconstruction along with ACL reconstruction than with stand-alone ACL reconstruction. Furthermore, dynamic radiostereometry provides the opportunity to examine clinical patients and compare the recontructed knee with the contralateral knee in 6 degrees of freedom.

ObjectivesStatic radiostereometric analysis (RSA) using implanted markers is considered the most accurate system for the evaluation of prosthesis migration. By using CT bone models instead of markers, combined with a dynamic RSA system, a non-invasive measurement of joint movement is enabled. This method is more accurate than current 3D skin marker-based tracking systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the CT model method for measuring knee joint kinematics in static and dynamic RSA using the marker method as the benchmark.MethodsBone models were created from CT scans, and tantalum beads were implanted into the tibia and femur of eight human cadaver knees. Each specimen was secured in a fixture, static and dynamic stereoradiographs were recorded, and the bone models and marker models were fitted to the stereoradiographs.ResultsResults showed a mean difference between the two methods in all six degrees of freedom for static RSA to be within -0.10 mm/° and 0.08 mm/° with a 95% limit of agreement (LoA) ranging from ± 0.49 to 1.26. Dynamic RSA had a slightly larger range in mean difference of -0.23 mm/° to 0.16 mm/° with LoA ranging from ± 0.75 to 1.50.ConclusionsIn a laboratory-controlled setting, the CT model method combined with dynamic RSA may be an alternative to previous marker-based methods for kinematic analyses.Cite this article: K. Stentz-Olesen, E. T. Nielsen, S. De Raedt, P. B. Jørgensen, O. G. Sørensen, B. L. Kaptein, M. S. Andersen, M. Stilling. Validation of static and dynamic radiostereometric analysis of the knee joint using bone models from CT data. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:376–384. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.66.BJR-2016-0113.R3.

The ALL was confirmed as a stabiliser of internal rotation in ACL-deficient knees. However, reconstructing the ALL using a gracilis autograft tendon did not decrease the internal rotation laxity in the ACL-reconstructed knee. Based on the results of this study, we do not recommend reconstructing the ALL in ACL-reconstructed knees to decrease internal knee laxity.