BackgroundRotational instability of the knee may persist after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, which may be due to insufficiency of anterolateral stabilizing structures. However, no reliable diagnostic tool or physical examination test is available for identifying patients with anterolateral rotatory instability (ALRI). As shown in cadaveric studies, static internal rotation of the knee is increased in higher flexion angles of the knee after severing the anterolateral structures. This might also be the case in patients with an ACL-deficient knee and concomitant damage to the anterolateral structures. The objective of this study is to assess anterolateral rotatory instability of the knee during physical examination with a tibial internal rotation test.MethodsACL-injured knees of 52 patients were examined by two examiners and side-to-side differences were compared. Both lower legs were internally rotated by applying manual internal rotation torque to both feet in prone position with the knees in 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. For quantification of the amount of rotation in degrees, a torque adapter on a booth was used. Intra-rater, inter-rater and rater-device agreement were determined by calculating kappa (κ) for the tibial internal rotation test.ResultsTibial internal rotation is increased in 19.2% of the patients with ACL injury according to the tibial internal rotation test. Good intra-rater agreement was found for the tibial internal rotation test, κC = 0.63 (95%CI -0.02-1.28), p = 0.015. Fair inter-rater agreement was found, κF = 0.29 (95%CI 0.02–0.57), p = 0.038. Good rater-device agreement was found, κC = 0.62 (95%CI 0.15–1.10), p = 0.001.ConclusionThe tibial internal rotation test shows increased tibial internal rotation in a small amount of patients with ACL injury. Even though no gold standard for assessment of increased tibial internal rotation of the knee is available yet, the test can be of additional value. It can be used for assessment of internal rotatory laxity of the knee as part of ALRI in addition to the pivot shift test. No clinical implications should yet be based on this test alone.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40634-018-0141-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

IntroductionTreatment of distal radius fractures (DRFs) aims to restore anatomic position of the fracture fragments and congruity of the articular surface to optimise functional outcomes and prevent osteoarthritis in the long term. While ligament injury of the wrist is often associated with DRFs and sole ligament injuries of the wrist lead to osteoarthritis, it is plausible that concomitant ligament injury in DRFs may aggravate degenerative changes of the wrist. The relationship between concomitant ligament injury and post-traumatic osteoarthritis in patients with DRFs is unclear. This study aims to identify the types of associated ligament injury in patients with a DRF and to elucidate the association of ligament injury on the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis.Methods and analysisThis protocol is written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. An electronic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Trials and Google Scholar has been created and performed by a Health Sciences librarian with expertise in systematic review searching. Original research articles in English literature, which report on concomitant ligament injury of the wrist in relation to post-traumatic osteoarthritis, patient-reported outcome measures or clinician-reported outcome measures in patients (aged ≥18 years) with DRFs will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen and appraise articles and perform data extraction. In case of any disagreements, a third reviewer will be consulted. A systematic qualitative synthesis will be performed using text and tables.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required, since this is a protocol for a systematic review. The systematic review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and for presentation at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165007.

BackgroundPosterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the knee can easily be missed, because attention is paid to injury of the cruciate ligaments. If left untreated this clinical instability may persist after reconstruction of the cruciate ligaments and may put the graft at risk of failure. Even though the dial test is widely used to diagnose PLRI, no validity and reliability studies of the manual dial test are yet performed in patients. This study focuses on the reliability of the manual dial test by determining the rater agreement.MethodsTwo independent examiners performed the dial test in knees of 52 patients after knee distorsion with a suspicion on ACL rupture. The dial test was performed in prone position in 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion of the knees. ≥10° side-to-side difference was considered a positive dial test. For quantification of the amount of rotation in degrees, a measuring device was used with a standardized 6 Nm force, using a digital torque adapter on a booth. The intra-rater, inter-rater and rater-device agreement were determined by calculating kappa (κ) for the dial test.ResultsA positive dial test was found in 21.2% and 18.0% of the patients as assessed by a blinded examiner and orthopaedic surgeon respectively. Fair inter-rater agreement was found in 30° of flexion, κF = 0.29 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.56), p = 0.044 and 90° of flexion, κF = 0.38 (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.66), p = 0.007. Almost perfect rater-device agreement was found in 30° of flexion, κC = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.52 to 1.15), p < 0.001. Moderate rater-device agreement was found in 30° and 90° combined, κC = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.13 to 0.86), p = 0.008. No significant intra-rater agreement was found.ConclusionsRater agreement reliability of the manual dial test is questionable. It has a fair inter-rater agreement in 30° and 90° of flexion.

IntroductionCurrent literature is inconclusive about the optimal treatment of elderly patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures. Cast treatment is less invasive and less expensive than surgical treatment. Nevertheless, surgery is often the preferred treatment for this common type of distal radius fracture. Patients with a non-acceptable position after closed reduction are more likely to benefit from surgery than patients with an acceptable position after closed reduction. Therefore, this study aims to assess non-inferiority of functional outcomes after casting versus surgery in elderly patients with a non-acceptable position following a distal radius fracture.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a non-inferiority design and an economic evaluation alongside. The population consists of patients aged 65 years and older with a displaced intra-articular distal radius fracture with non-acceptable radiological characteristics following either inadequate reduction or redisplacement after adequate reduction. Patients will be randomised between surgical treatment (open reduction and internal fixation) and non-operative treatment (closed reduction followed by cast treatment). We will use two age strata (65–75 and >75 years of age) and a web-based mixed block randomisation. A total of 154 patients will be enrolled and evaluated with the patient-rated wrist evaluation as the primary outcome at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D), wrist range of motion, grip strength and adverse events. In addition, we will perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be presented.Ethics and disseminationThe Research and Ethics Committee approved this RCT (NL56858.100.16). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal. We will present the results of this study at (inter)national conferences and disseminate the results through guideline committees.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov (NCT03009890). Dutch Trial Registry (NTR6365).