Objective: To assess the diagnostic validity of an isokinetic testing to detect partial injuries on the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Design: Prospective diagnostic study. Settings: Orthopedic clinic, physiotherapy clinic, orthopedic hospital, and diagnostic/image clinic. Participants: Consecutive patients (n = 29) with unilateral knee complaint submitted to physical examination, magnetic resonance images (MRIs), and isokinetic testing prior to surgery of ACL reconstruction. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: The isokinetic torque curves data from extensor and flexor muscles were converted to frequency domain by fast Fourier transformation and compared with healthy contralateral limb. Differences were categorized as unstable knees and these conclusions were compared with patient’s physical examinations (doctor’s conclusion on ACL integrity) and MRIs (as the radiologist conclusions on ACL integrity). After surgery, all intraoperatively confirmed partial injured patient’s data were collected. The diagnostic accuracy measures to compare the conclusions of all 3 professionals included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, disease prevalence, positive likelihood ratio, and accuracy—all using a confidence interval of 95%. Results: Compared with MRI, the sensitivity of isokinetic test for an ACL partial injury was 90.00%, specificity 83.33%, positive predictive value 52.94%, negative predictive value 97.56%, and accuracy 84.48%. Compared with physical examination, the sensitivity of isokinetic test for an ACL partial injury was 85.71%, specificity 78.43%, positive predictive value 35.29%, negative predictive value 97.56%, and accuracy 79.31%. Conclusions: This method of isokinetic data analysis through fast Fourier transformation can be used to improve diagnostic accuracy of a difficult detection injury. Even present, a partial ACL injury can produce a stable knee during isokinetic testing and could be used to detect candidates for conservative treatment based on strengthening exercises, reducing surgery risks, and financial and social impact on patient’s life.
Robson Dias Scoz, Cesar F. Amorim, Bruno O.A. Mazziotti, Rubens A. Da Silva, Edgar R. Vieira, Alexandre D. Lopes, and Ronaldo E.C.D. Gabriel
Alexandre H. Nowotny, Mariane Guizeline Calderon, Bruno Mazziotti O. Alves, Marcio R. de Oliveira, Rodrigo A. de Carvalho Andraus, Andreo F. Aguiar, Cesar F. Amorim, Guillaume Leonard, and Rubens A. da Silva
Context: Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) may be associated with changes in postural balance in athletes as poor postural control during sports practice. Objective: To compare the postural control of athletes with and without CLBP during 2 one-legged stance tasks and identify the center of pressure (COP) cutoff values to determine the main differences. Designed: A cross-sectional study. Setting: Laboratory of functional evaluation and human motor performance. Participants: A total of 56 male athletes, 28 with and 28 without CLBP (mean age = 26 y). Intervention: The one-legged stance with knee extension and with the knee at 30° flexion tasks were measured and analyzed on a force platform. The participants completed three 30-second trials (30 s of rest between each trial). Main Outcome Measures: The COP parameters: the area of COP, mean COP sway velocity in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions, and total COP displacement were computed, and a receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was applied to determine the group differences. Results: Athletes with CLBP had poorer postural control (P < .01) in both tasks. The 30° knee flexion reported more postural instability than the knee extension for all COP parameters (a large effect size d = 0.80).The knee extension cutoffs identified were >7.1 cm2 for the COP area, >2.6 cm/s for the COP sway velocity in the anterior-posterior direction, and >3.2 cm/s for the mediolateral direction. Whereas, the 30° knee flexion cutoffs were >10.9 cm2 for the COP area, >2.9 cm/s for the COP sway velocity in the anterior-posterior direction, and >4.1 cm/s for the mediolateral direction. Both measures showed enough sensitivity and specificity (ie, area under the curve = 0.88 in and 0.80, respectively) to discriminate both groups. Conclusions: The athletes with CLBP had poorer postural control than the healthy athletes and obtained specific cutoff scores from the COP values.