Accuracy and Stability of a New Automatic Knee Arthrometer in Diagnosing ACL Rupture

NCT ID: NCT04956315

Last Updated: 2021-07-09

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

421 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-06-30

Study Completion Date

2020-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

We introduced an automatic knee arthrometer (AKA) and aimed to evaluate the repeatability and effectiveness thereof in diagnosing ACL rupture compared with the KT-2000.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The AKA was compared to the KT-2000 at 134 N in this study, the anterior displacement and difference of both knees of every subject were measured. The first protocol was designed to evaluate examiner effect (level of experience) and contralateral-side effect (left or right knee) in a single healthy subject, ten times, on ten consecutive days. The second was to compare the stability in 20 healthy subjects, with a single experienced examiner. Third, we recruited 200 ACL rupture and 200 healthy subjects as contrast to compare the accuracy of the devices in diagnosing ACL rupture.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Knee Ligament; Laxity

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Examiner effect group

Two examiners performed the test on one healthy subject with both devices for ten consecutive days. We measured the AD of both knees and calculated the ADD of every test. We evaluated the contralateral-side effect by comparing the AD standard deviations of each knee with both devices, and compared the average ADD tested by different examiners with the same device, to estimate examiner effect.

Side-to-side difference (reproducibility)

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

The experienced examiner performed tests on 20 healthy subjects

Method effect group

The experienced examiner performed tests on 20 healthy subjects using both devices. The means and standard deviations of both knees were calculated. We examined the difference in measurements using each device to determine the method effect.

Side-to-side difference (availability)

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Two examiners performed the test on one healthy subject with both devices for ten consecutive days.

Equipment effectiveness group

The experienced examiner performed tests on 200 ACL ruptureand 200 healthy subjects using each device. Effectiveness was analyzed using 1.5 mm and 3 mm threshold values in ACL tears.

Side-to-side difference (Accuracy)

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

200 ACL rupture and 200 healthy subjects were recruited as contrast to compare the accuracy of the devices in diagnosing ACL rupture.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Side-to-side difference (reproducibility)

The experienced examiner performed tests on 20 healthy subjects

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Side-to-side difference (availability)

Two examiners performed the test on one healthy subject with both devices for ten consecutive days.

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Side-to-side difference (Accuracy)

200 ACL rupture and 200 healthy subjects were recruited as contrast to compare the accuracy of the devices in diagnosing ACL rupture.

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* patients with ACL rupture from our institution were included. All patients were diagnosed by sports medicine specialists based on clinical manifestation, combined with imaging examinations, and hospitalized for further surgery.

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients aged \<18 or \>45 years, with combined multiple knee ligament injury combinations, and/or limited range of motion of the knee (unable to flex to 20-30°)
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

45 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Beihang University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Peking University Third Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

yingfang ao, M.D.

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Peking University Third Hospital

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Peking university third hospital

Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

China

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

M2020263

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.