Reliabilität und Validität des Lever Sign Tests bei Verdacht auf Band- und/oder Meniskus-Verletzung des Knies: ein Vergleich zwischen Orthopäde und Physiotherapeut

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Das Ziel dieser Studie war die Untersuchung der Intertester-Reliabilität und Validität des Lever Sign-Tests. Der Intertester-Reliabilität wurde in bisherigen Studiennoch wenig Beachtung geschenkt. Um Vergleiche mit anderen Studien ziehen zu können, wurde zusätzlich die Intertester-Reliabilität und Validität des Lachman- und Anterior Drawer-Tests berechnet.

Patienten/Material und Methoden Eingeschlossen wurden Patienten und Patientinnen zwischen 18 und 50 Jahren mit Verdacht auf Band- und/oder Meniskus-Verletzungen. Ausschlusskriterien waren Verdacht auf bösartige, systemische oder zentralneurologische Erkrankungen, akute Knorpelverletzungen, Verdacht auf Fraktur oder Kenntnis über den Kniebefund der Teilnehmenden. Die Tests wurden von einem erfahrenen Orthopäden und einem Physiotherapeuten randomisiert und verblindet durchgeführt. Für die Intertester-Reliabilität wurde der Cohen’s Kappa und für die Validität die Sensitivität und Spezifität, der Positiv und Negativ Prädiktive Wert und die Positive und Negative Likelihood ratio berechnet. Der MRI-Befund wurde als Goldstandard genutzt.

Ergebnisse Sechsunddreissig Patienten und Patientinnen wurden in die Studie eingeschlossen. Davon waren 27 männlich (75%) und 9 weiblich (25%). Die Prävalenz von vorderen Kreuzbandläsionen lag bei 44,4%. Der Cohen’s Kappa (κ) des Lever Sign-Tests lag bei κ=0,6 (KI 95% [0,29, 0,91]), beim Lachman-Test bei κ=0,64 (KI 95% [0,35, 0,93]) und beim Anterior Drawer-Test bei κ=0,63 (KI 95% [0,3, 0,95]). Die Sensitivität des Lever Sign-Tests war für den Orthopäden und Physiotherapeuten 0,53 und 0,40, die Spezifität 0,89 und 0,79, der Positiv Prädiktive Wert 0,80 und 0,60, der Negativ Prädiktive Wert 0,70 und 0,62, die Positive Likelihood ratio 4,80 und 1,90 und die Negative Likelihood ratio 0,76 und 0,53.

Schlussfolgerung Die geschätzte Intertester-Reliabilität des Lever Sign-Tests war gut. Der Lever Sign-Test eignet sich als Ergänzung zum Lachman-Test, der in der Literatur als validester Test angesehen wird. Die Schwächen und Unklarheiten des Funktionsmechanismus des Lever Sign-Tests dürfen nicht ignoriert werden und sollten weiter erforscht werden.

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the intertester reliability and validity of the Lever Sign Test. Intertester reliability has received little attention in previous studies. In order to make comparisons with other studies, the intertester reliability and validity of the Lachman and Anterior Drawer Tests were also calculated.

Patients/Material and Methods Patients between 18 and 50 years of age with suspected ligament and/or meniscus injuries were included. Exclusion criteria were suspected malignant, systemic, or central neurologic disease, acute cartilage injury, suspected fracture, or knowledge of the participant's knee findings. Testing was randomized and blinded by an experienced orthopaedic surgeon and a physical therapist. Cohen's kappa was calculated for intertester reliability. Sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio were calculated. MRI findings were used as the gold standard.

Results Thirty-six patients were enrolled in the study, 27 male (75%) and 9 female (25%). The prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament lesions was 44.4%. Cohen’s kappa (κ) was κ=0.6 (CI 95% [0.29, 0.91]) for the Lever Sign Test, κ=0.64 (CI 95% [0.35, 0.93]) for the Lachman test, and κ=0.63 (CI 95% [0.3, 0.95]) for the Anterior Drawer Test. The sensitivity of the Lever Sign Test was 0.53 and 0.40 for the orthopaedic surgeon and physical therapist, respectively, specificity was 0.89 and 0.79, the positive predictive value was 0.80 and 0.60, the negative predictive value was 0.70 and 0.62, the positive likelihood ratio was 4.80 and 1.90, respectively, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.76 and 0.53.

Conclusion The estimated intertester reliability of the Lever Sign Test was good. The Lever Sign Test is suitable as a complement to the Lachman Test, which is considered the most valid test in the literature. The weaknesses and ambiguities of the operating mechanism of the Lever Sign Test should not be ignored and should be further explored.

Schlüsselwörter

Lever Sign Test - Intertester-Reliabilität - Validität - VKB - Vorderes Kreuzband

Keywords

Lever Sign Test - intertester reliability - validity - ACL - anterior cruciate ligament

Publication History

Received: 21 February 2023

Accepted after revision: 30 July 2023

Article published online:
04 December 2023

• Literatur

• 1 Benjaminse A, Gokeler A, van der Schans CP. Clinical diagnosis of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006; 36: 267-288 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2006.2011. (PMID: 16715828)
• 2 Unfallstatistik. Accessed December 27, 2020 at: https://www.suva.ch/de-ch/die-suva/ueber-uns/unfallstatistik
• 3 Ruptur des vorderen Kreuzbandes: operative oder konservative Behandlung?. 2009 Accessed January 19, 2022 at: https://www.swissmedicalboard.ch/index.php?id=70&no_cache=1&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=47&cHash=027abd910aa298f1840d4d26dd2ce921
• 4 Makhmalbaf H, Moradi A, Ganji S. et al. Accuracy of Lachman and Anterior Drawer Tests for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2013; 1: 94-97 (PMID: 25207297)
• 5 Lelli A, Di Turi RP, Spenciner DB. et al. The “Lever Sign”: a new clinical test for the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24: 2794-2797 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-014-3490-7.
• 6 Chong AC, Whitetree C, Priddy MC. et al. Evaluating Different Clinical Diagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures In Providers with Different Training Backgrounds. The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal 2017; 37: 71
• 7 Deveci A, Cankaya D, Yilmaz S. et al. The arthroscopical and radiological corelation of lever sign test for the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Springerplus 2015; 4: 830 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1628-9. (PMID: 26753117)
• 8 Gürpınar T, Polat B, Polat AE. et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Lever Sign Test in Acute, Chronic, and Postreconstructive ACL Injuries. Biomed Res Int 2019; 2019: 3639693 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3639693. (PMID: 31281835)
• 9 Jarbo KA, Hartigan DE, Scott KL. et al. Accuracy of the Lever Sign Test in the Diagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5: 2325967117729809 DOI: 10.1177/2325967117729809. (PMID: 29051898)
• 10 Lichtenberg MC, Koster CH, Teunissen LPJ. et al. Does the Lever Sign Test Have Added Value for Diagnosing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures?. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6: 2325967118759631 DOI: 10.1177/2325967118759631.
• 11 McQuivey KS, Christopher ZK, Chung AS. et al. Implementing the Lever Sign in the Emergency Department: Does it Assist in Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture Diagnosis? A Pilot Study. The Journal of Emergency Medicine 2019; 57: 805-811 DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.09.003.
• 12 Guiraud K, Silvestre G, Bastin C. et al. Higher sensitivity with the lever sign test for diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament rupture in the emergency department. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04154-x.
• 13 Guillodo Y, Rannou N, Dubrana F. et al. Diagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture in an Emergency Department. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2008; 65: 1078-1082 DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181469b7d. (PMID: 19001976)
• 14 Thapa SS, Lamichhane AP, Mahara DP. Accuracy of Lelli Test For Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear. Journal of Institute of Medicine 2015; 37: 91-94
• 15 Mulligan EP, Anderson A, Watson S. et al. THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF THE LEVER SIGN FOR DETECTING ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT INJURY. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2017; 12: 1057-1067 DOI: 10.26603/ijspt20171057. (PMID: 29234557)
• 16 Sobrado MF, Bonadio MB, Ribeiro GF. et al. LEVER SIGN TEST FOR CHRONIC ACL INJURY: A COMPARISON WITH LACHMAN AND ANTERIOR DRAWER TESTS. Acta Ortop Bras 2021; 29: 132-136 DOI: 10.1590/1413-785220212903238345.
• 17 Lange T, Freiberg A, Dröge P. et al. The reliability of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament rupture – A systematic review. Manual Therapy 2015; 20: 402-411 DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2014.11.003. (PMID: 25466498)
• 18 Massey PA, Harris JD, Winston LA. et al. Critical Analysis of the Lever Test for Diagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Insufficiency. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery 2017; 33: 1560-1566 DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.03.007. (PMID: 28499922)
• 19 Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 2005; 85: 257-268 (PMID: 15733050)
• 20 Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S. et al. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2011; 48: 661-671 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016.
• 21 Lubowitz JH, Bernardini BJ, Reid JB. Current concepts review: comprehensive physical examination for instability of the knee. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36: 577-594 DOI: 10.1177/0363546507312641. (PMID: 18219052)
• 22 Oei EHG, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen ACM. et al. MR Imaging of the Menisci and Cruciate Ligaments: A Systematic Review. Radiology 2003; 226: 837-848 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2263011892. (PMID: 12601211)
• 23 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2022
• 24 Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174 DOI: 10.2307/2529310. (PMID: 843571)
• 25 Huang W, Zhang Y, Yao Z. et al. Clinical examination of anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2016; 50: 22-31 DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2016.14.0283. (PMID: 26854045)
• 26 Geraets SEW, Meuffels DE, van Meer BL. et al. Diagnostic value of medical history and physical examination of anterior cruciate ligament injury: comparison between primary care physician and orthopaedic surgeon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23: 968-974 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2769-4.
• 27 van Eck CF, van den Bekerom MPJ, Fu FH. et al. Methods to diagnose acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis of physical examinations with and without anaesthesia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21: 1895-1903 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-012-2250-9.
• 28 Abruscato K, Browning K, Deleandro D. et al. DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF THE LEVER SIGN IN DETECTING ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT TEARS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2019; 14: 2-13 (PMID: 30746288)
• 29 Reiman MP, Reiman CK, Décary S. ACCURACY OF THE LEVER SIGN TO DIAGNOSE ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT TEAR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2018; 13: 774-788 (PMID: 30276010)
• 30 Lucas NP, Macaskill P, Irwig L. et al. The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010; 63: 854-861 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.10.002. (PMID: 20056381)
• 31 Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271: 703-707 DOI: 10.1001/jama.271.9.703.
• 32 Crawford R, Walley G, Bridgman S. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus arthroscopy in the diagnosis of knee pathology, concentrating on meniscal lesions and ACL tears: a systematic review. British Medical Bulletin 2007; 84: 5-23 DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldm022. (PMID: 17785279)