Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of the GNRB arthrometer (Genourob), Lachman test, and Telos device (GmbH) in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and to evaluate the accuracy of each diagnostic tool according to the length of time from injury to examination.
Materials and methods: From September 2015 to September 2016, 40 cases of complete ACL rupture were reviewed. We divided the time from injury to examination into three periods of 10 days each and analyzed the diagnostic tools according to the time frame.
Results: An analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic curve showed that all diagnostic tools were fairly informative. The GNRB showed a higher AUC than other diagnostic tools. In 10 cases assessed within 10 days after injury, the GNRB showed statistically significant side-to-side difference in laxity (p＜0.001), whereas the Telos test and Lachman test did not show significantly different laxity (p=0.541 and p=0.413, respectively).
Conclusions: All diagnostic values of the GNRB were better than other diagnostic tools in acute ACL injuries. The GNRB was more effective in acute ACL injuries examined within 10 days of injury. The GNRB arthrometer can be a useful diagnostic tool for acute ACL injuries.
Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament; Diagnosis; GNRB Arthrometer; Injury; Knee; Telos.
Conflict of interest statement
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Anterior knee laxity measurement: comparison of passive stress radiographs Telos(®) and "Lerat", and GNRB(®) arthrometer.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Nov;98(7):744-50. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.05.017. Epub 2012 Oct 16. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012. PMID: 23084264 Clinical Trial.
A new knee arthrometer, the GNRB: experience in ACL complete and partial tears.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009 May;95(3):171-6. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.03.009. Epub 2009 May 7. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009. PMID: 19423416 Clinical Trial.
Validity of GNRB® arthrometer compared to Telos™ in the assessment of partial anterior cruciate ligament tears.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Feb;22(2):285-90. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2384-4. Epub 2013 Jan 22. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014. PMID: 23338663
Anterior cruciate ligament tears in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis of nonoperative versus operative treatment.Am J Sports Med. 2014 Nov;42(11):2769-76. doi: 10.1177/0363546513510889. Epub 2013 Dec 4. Am J Sports Med. 2014. PMID: 24305648 Review.
The Importance of Patient Sex in the Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):242-54. doi: 10.1177/0363546515573008. Epub 2015 Mar 23. Am J Sports Med. 2016. PMID: 25802119 Review.
Cited by 2 articles
Validity of the Genourob arthrometer in the evaluation of total thickness tears of anterior cruciate ligament.J Orthop. 2020 Mar 26;22:203-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.03.041. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec. J Orthop. 2020. PMID: 32425418
Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at a Minimum of 2 Years Using Adjustable Suspensory Fixation in Both the Femur and Tibia: A Prospective Study.Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Oct 22;6(10):2325967118804128. doi: 10.1177/2325967118804128. eCollection 2018 Oct. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018. PMID: 30364847 Free PMC article.