ArticleTranslational sports medicine2024
DYNEELAX Robotic Arthrometer Reliability and Feasibility on Healthy and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injured/Reconstructed Persons.
Article in Translational sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation and reliability of a novel portable automated knee arthrometer: a cadaveric study bridging the skin-to-bone gap and suggesting medial pivotal rotation as a superior marker for ACL deficiency.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are commonly assessed using clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging, but these methods have limitations in reproducibility and quantification. Instrumented laxity measurements using devices, like the DYNEELAX®, offer an alternative approach. However, to date, there is no human data on the DYNEELAX® and the reliability of these devices remains a subject of debate, and there is no consensus on appropriate knee tightening levels for testing. We hypothesized that the DYNEELAX®, with standardized knee tightening, would provide reliable measurements of knee laxity in adult volunteers. Methods: This prospective cohort study involved 48 pain-free adult volunteers. Laxity measurements were taken using a robotic-type motorized instrument (DYNEELAX®) on two separate occasions, at least 1 h and no more than 8 h apart, with knee tightening forces of 90 N ± 5 N. Metrics of anterior tibial translation and internal/external tibial axial rotations were recorded. Results: The device displayed excellent intrarater reliability for all the metrics, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.91 to 0.96. Anterior translation exhibited the highest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96), with a minimum detectable change of 0.83 mm. Conclusions: DYNEELAX® is reliable in measuring knee laxity in adult volunteers when using standardized stabilizing knee tightening forces of 90 ± 5 N. The most sensitive measurement parameters (in terms of minimum detectable change as a proportion of the observed range) were anterior translation (in mm) at 150 N and secondary compliance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.