Dataset Information

Transtibial ACL reconstruction technique fails to position drill tunnels anatomically in vivo 3D CT study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to visualize and quantify the positions of femoral and tibial tunnels in patients who underwent traditional transtibial single-bundle ACL reconstruction, as performed by multiple surgeons, utilizing 3D CT models, and to compare these positions to our previously reported anatomical tunnel positions.

Methods

Fifty-eight knee computed tomography (CT) scans were performed on patients who underwent primary or revision transtibial single-bundle ACL reconstruction, and three-dimensional reconstructions of the CT scans were aligned within an anatomical coordinate system. The position of femoral tunnel aperture centers was measured with (1) the quadrant method and (2) in the anatomic posterior-to-anterior and proximal-to-distal directions. The position of tibia tunnel aperture centers were measured similarly, in the anterior-to-posterior and medial-to-lateral dimensions on the tibial plateau. Comparisons were made to previously established anatomical tunnel positions, and data were presented as "mean value ± standard deviation (range)."

Results

The location of tibial tunnels was at 48.0 ± 5.4% (35.6-59.5%) of the anterior-to-posterior plateau depth and at 47.9 ± 2.9% (42.2-57.4%) of the medial-to-lateral plateau width. The location of femoral tunnels was at 55.8 ± 8.0% (41.5-79.5%) in the anatomic posterior-to-anterior direction and at 41.2 ± 10.4% (15.1-67.4%) in the proximal-to-distal directions. Utilizing a quadrant method, femoral tunnels were positioned at 37.4 ± 5.1% (24.9-50.6%) from the proximal condylar surface, parallel to Blumensaat line, and at 11.0 ± 7.3% (-6.0-28.7%) from the notch roof, perpendicular to Blumensaat line. In summary, tibial tunnels were positioned medial to the anatomic PL position (p < 0.001), and femoral tunnels were positioned anterior to both AM and PL anatomic tunnel locations (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001).

Conclusion

ACL reconstruction via traditional transtibial technique fails to accurately position femoral and tibial tunnels within the native ACL insertion site. To achieve anatomical graft placement, other surgical techniques should be considered.

Level of evidence

IV.

SUBMITTER: Kopf S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3477486 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe drilling technique used to make a femoral tunnel is critically important for determining outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The 2 most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques.PurposeTo determine whether graft orientation and placement affect clinical outcomes by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes after single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the AM versus TT technique.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsArticles in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched from inception until April 25, 2020, using the following Boolean operators: transtibial OR trans-tibial AND (anteromedial OR trans-portal OR independent OR three portal OR accessory portal) AND anterior cruciate ligament.ResultsOf 1270 studies retrieved, 39 studies involving 11,207 patients were included. Of these studies, 14 were clinical, 13 were radiological, and 12 were mixed. Results suggested that compared with the TT technique, the AM technique led to significantly improved anteroposterior and rotational knee stability, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and recovery time from surgery. A higher proportion of negative Lachman (P = .0005) and pivot-shift test (P = .0001) results, lower KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual displacement (P = .00001), higher Lysholm score (P = .001), a higher incidence of IKDC grade A/B (P = .05), and better visual analog scale score for satisfaction (P = .00001) were observed with the AM technique compared with the TT technique. The AM drilling technique demonstrated a significantly shorter tunnel length (P = .00001). Significant differences were seen between the femoral and tibial graft angles in both techniques. Low overall complication and revision rates were observed for ACL reconstruction with the AM drilling technique, similar to the TT drilling technique.ConclusionIn single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the AM drilling technique was superior to the TT drilling technique based on physical examination, scoring systems, and radiographic results. The AM portal technique provided a more reproducible anatomic graft placement compared with the TT technique.

Project description:Improved biomechanical and clinical outcomes are seen when the femoral tunnels of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are placed in the center of the femoral insertion. The transtibial (TT) technique has been shown to be less capable of this than an anteromedial (AM) portal approach but is more familiar to surgeons and less technically challenging. A hybrid transtibial (HTT) technique using medial portal guidance of a transtibial guide wire without knee hyperflexion may offer anatomic tunnel placement while maintaining the relative ease of a TT technique.To evaluate the anatomic and biomechanical performance of the HTT technique compared with TT and AM approaches.Controlled laboratory study.Thirty-six paired, fresh-frozen human knees were used. Twenty-four knees (12 pairs) underwent all 3 techniques (TT, AM, HTT) for femoral tunnel placement, with direct measurement of femoral insertional overlap and femoral tunnel length. The remaining 12 knees (6 pairs) underwent completed reconstructions to evaluate graft anisometry and tunnel orientation, with each technique performed in 4 specimens and tested using motion sensors with a quad-load induced model. Graft length changes and graft/femoral tunnel angle were measured at varying degrees of flexion.Percentage overlap of the femoral insertion averaged 37.0% ± 28.6% for TT, 93.9% ± 5.6% for HTT, and 79.7% ± 7.7% for AM, with HTT significantly greater than both TT (P = .007) and AM (P = .001) approaches. Graft length change during knee flexion (anisometry) was 30.1% for HTT, 12.8% for AM, and 8.5% for TT. When compared with the TT approach, HTT constructs exhibited comparable graft-femoral tunnel angulation (TT, 150° ± 3° vs HTT, 142° ± 2.3°; P < .001) and length (TT, 42.6 ± 2.8 mm vs HTT, 38.5 ± 2.0 mm; P = .12), while AM portal tunnels were significantly shorter (31.6 ± 1.6 mm; P = .001) and more angulated (121° ± 6.5°; P < .001).The HTT technique avoids hyperflexion and maintains femoral tunnel orientation and length, similar to the TT technique, but simultaneously achieves anatomic graft positioning.The HTT technique offers an anatomic alternative to an AM portal approach while maintaining the technical advantages of a traditional TT reconstruction.

Project description:BackgroundIndependent transtibial pullout repair is a common surgical technique for repairing lateral meniscus posterior root tears (LMPRTs). The shared anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) bone tunnel technique is an alternative technique for LMPRT repair combined with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) to avoid the establishment of additional bone tunnels.PurposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of the shared ACL bone tunnel versus the independent transtibial pullout techniques for LMPRT repair combined with ACLR.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsBetween March 2014 and February 2018, a total of 48 patients were diagnosed with ACL injury with concomitant LMPRT; 22 patients underwent independent transtibial pullout repair (group T), and 26 patients underwent the shared ACL bone tunnel technique (group S). At a follow-up of >2 years, we compared knee functional recovery using the Lysholm, Tegner, and International Knee Documentation Committee scores and the pivot-shift test. Lateral meniscal extrusion, and cartilage degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were also compared. The healing status of the lateral meniscus posterior root was compared using second-look arthroscopy and MRI.ResultsThe duration of surgery was significantly shorter in group S compared with group T (98.3 ± 11.1 vs 127.9 ± 17.5 min; P = .001). At final follow-up, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in knee functional scores, pivot shift, or grade of cartilage degeneration. Lateral meniscal extrusion was decreased in group S compared with group T (2.41 ± 0.61 vs 1.59 ± 1.35 mm; P = .014). Second-look arthroscopy revealed stable healing in 16 of 18 patients (88.9%) in group S and 10 of 15 patients (66.7%) in group T (P = .38).ConclusionBoth the shared ACL bone tunnel and the independent transtibial pullout techniques led to satisfactory clinical outcomes. The shared ACL bone tunnel technique is the simpler of the 2 procedures for combined LMPRT repair with ACLR.

Project description:One- or two-staged bone grafting is sometimes required for tunnel malposition and/or tunnel widening in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim of this procedure is to restore the correct position of the ACL graft in the revision setting to provide a stable and functional ACL, thereby reproducing normal knee kinematics. We present a technique that allows for a cost-effective, convenient tunnel grafting of a femoral head allograft bone dowel into both femoral and tibial defects in revision ACL reconstruction. Technique Video Video Use of the cannulated Coring Reamer System (Arthex, Naples, FL) to perform the harvest. A 2.4-mm guide pin is placed through the femoral head and neck allograft, parallel to the neck axis. A coring reamer and plunger should be used to harvest a core diameter identical to that of the reamed tunnels. The coring reamer’s centralizing plunger with its guide pin should be left in its already cannulated position through the harvested core. This entire construct will be used to easily graft the associated tunnel. The allograft dowel is then marked 5 mm greater than the corresponding depth of the femoral socket, in accordance with the prior reaming depth. This step allows for compression of the cancellous portion of the bone dowel into the tunnel. At this mark, a narrow rongeur is used to weaken the bone dowel circumferentially, leaving a small bone bridge. The entire construct is then introduced via the tibial tunnel or anteromedial portal, depending on the trajectory previously used to ream the femoral tunnel. The plunger-pin-dowel construct is then advanced into the femoral tunnel by gently tapping a pin puller that is solidly gripping the guide pin. Once the femoral dowel is fully seated and flush with the opening of the femoral defect, the dowel’s bone bridge is then broken at the previously weakened site with the use of a probe. The remaining dowel is removed from the knee using a powered wire driver. (It will come out easily with the plunger-pin construct en bloc.) The remaining dowel is then repositioned into the tibial tunnel and tapped into position as desired. Using the remainder of the first dowel, a second one can be harvested easily if the tibial tunnel is not completely grafted.