Reference standards for stress radiography measurements in knee ligament injury and instability: a systematic review

Abstract

AbstractPurposeStress radiographs are an easily accessible, cost‐effective tool in the evaluation of acute and chronic ligament knee injuries. Stress radiographs provide an objective, quantifiable, and functional assessment of the injured ligament and can be a useful adjunct when planning surgical management and to objectively assess postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to review the literature reporting on stress radiographic techniques in evaluating knee ligament injury and instability and propose thresholds for interpreting stress radiography techniques.MethodsThe following three databases, OVID MEDLINE, the EMBASE library, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, were systematically searched on January 23, 2023, for studies published from January 1970 to January 2023. The search extended to the reference lists of all relevant studies and orthopedic journals. Included studies were those that described a stress technique for the diagnosis of knee ligament injury; studies that reported a description or comparison of the accuracy and/or reliability of one or several stress radiography techniques, or studies that reported a comparison with alternative diagnostic modalities.ResultsSixteen stress radiography techniques were reported for assessing the ACL with stress applied in the anterior plane, 10 techniques for assessing the PCL with stress applied in the posterior plane, 3 techniques for valgus stress, and 4 techniques for varus stress. The Telos device was the most commonly used stress device in the ACL and PCL studies. There was no consensus on the accuracy and reliability of stress radiography techniques for the diagnosis of any knee ligament injury. Stress radiography techniques were compared with alternative diagnostic techniques including instrumented arthrometry, MRI, and physical examination in 18 studies, with variability in the advantages and disadvantages of stress radiography techniques and alternatives. Analysis of results pooled from different studies demonstrated average delta gapping in knees with a completely injured ligament compared to the normal contralateral knee as per the following: for the ACL 4.9 ± 1.4 mm; PCL 8.1 ± 2.5 mm; MCL 2.3 ± 0.05 mm; and the FCL 3.4 ± 0.2 mm.ConclusionDespite heterogeneity in the available literature with regard to stress examination techniques and device utilization, the data support that stress radiography techniques were accurate and reliable when compared to numerous alternatives in the diagnosis of acute and chronic knee ligament injuries. The present study also provides average increased ipsilateral compartment gapping/translation for specific knee ligament injuries based on the best available data. These values provide a reference standard for the interpretation of stress radiography techniques, help to guide surgical decision‐making, and provide benchmark values for future investigations.Level of evidenceIII.