Comparing the Efficacy of Kneeling Stress Radiographs and Weighted Gravity Stress Radiographs to Assess Posterior Cruciate Ligament Insufficiency. Issue 4 (March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Holliday, Charles L.; Martin, Ryan; Grant, John A.
• Is Part Of: American journal of sports medicine. Volume 49:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 1017
• Page End: 1022
• Publication Date: 2021-03
• Subjects: knee -- posterior cruciate ligament -- stress radiography -- general sports trauma; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1177/0363546520988114
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-5465

Abstract

Background: Kneeling posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) stress radiographs are commonly used to evaluate PCL laxity. Patients, however, report significant pain, and the method's reproducibility may be challenged due to its dependence on patient body weight distribution to produce posterior tibial displacement. Weighted gravity stress radiography may offer better reproducibility and comfort than the kneeling technique, but its efficacy has not been studied. Hypothesis: Weighted gravity PCL stress radiographs will be more comfortable and produce similar measurements of side-to-side difference in posterior tibial displacement when compared with the kneeling technique. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 40 patients with nonoperatively or >6 months postoperatively treated PCL injuries (isolated or multiligamentous) underwent bilateral stress radiographs. Weighted gravity and kneeling stress radiographs were acquired, in random order, for each patient, as well as side-to-side difference in posterior tibial displacement between each knee, patient-reported visual analog scale knee pain (100 mm), time to acquire the images, and patient preference for technique. Paired t tests were used to compare the side-to-side difference, pain score, and time to complete the radiographs. Results: There was no difference between the 2 radiographic methods in the mean side-to-side difference (gravity: 6.45 ± 4.61 mm, kneeling: 6.82 ± 4.60 mm; P = .72), time required to acquire radiographs (kneeling: 307.3 ± 140.5 seconds, gravity: 318.7 ± 151.1 seconds; P = .073), or number of radiographs taken to obtain acceptable images (kneeling: 3.6 ± 1.6, gravity: 3.7 ± 1.7; P = .73). Patients reported significantly less knee pain during the weighted gravity views (kneeling: 31.8 ± 26.6, gravity: 4.0 ± 12.0; P < .0001). Of the patients, 88% preferred the weighted gravity method. Conclusion: Weighted gravity stress radiographs produce similar side-to-side differences in posterior tibial translation compared with the kneeling stress technique, but do not rely on patient weightbearing and provide significantly better patient comfort. Clinicians should therefore consider the use of weighted gravity stress radiographs in clinical practice to minimize the pain associated with stress radiography while allowing for accurate decision making.