Dataset Information

Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Portal ACL Reconstruction: Is a Hybrid Approach the Best?

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jennings JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5549878 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

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:PurposeThe 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.MethodsFifty-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)."ResultsThe 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).ConclusionACL 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 evidenceIV.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about knee mechanics and muscle control after augmented ACL repair. Our aim was to compare knee biomechanics and leg muscle activity during walking between the legs of patients 2 years after InternalBraceTM-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACL-IB) and between patients after ACL-IB and ACL reconstruction (ACL-R), and controls.MethodsTwenty-nine ACL-IB, 27 sex- and age-matched ACL-R (hamstring tendon autograft) and 29 matched controls completed an instrumented gait analysis. Knee joint angles, moments, power, and leg muscle activity were compared between the involved and uninvolved leg in ACL-IB (paired t-tests), and between the involved legs in ACL patients and the non-dominant leg in controls (analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni tests) using statistical parametric mapping (SPM, P < 0.05). Means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of differences in discrete parameters (DP; i.e., maximum/minimum) were calculated.ResultsSignificant differences were observed in ACL-IB only in minimum knee flexion angle (DP: 2.4°, CI [-4.4;-0.5]; involved > uninvolved) and maximum knee flexion moment during stance (-0.07Nm/kg, CI [-0.13;-0.00]; involved < uninvolved), and differences between ACL-IB and ACL-R only in maximum knee flexion during swing (DP: 3.6°, CI [0.5;7.0]; ACL-IB > ACL-R). Compared to controls, ACL-IB (SPM: 0-3%GC, P = 0.015; 98-100%, P = 0.016; DP: -6.3 mm, CI [-11.7;-0.8]) and ACL-R (DP: -6.0 mm, CI [-11.4;-0.2]) had lower (maximum) anterior tibia position around heel strike. ACL-R also had lower maximum knee extension moment (DP: -0.13Nm/kg, CI [-0.23;-0.02]) and internal knee rotation moment (SPM: 34-41%GC, P < 0.001; DP: -0.03Nm/kg, CI [-0.06;-0.00]) during stance, and greater maximum semitendinosus activity before heel strike (DP: 11.2%maximum voluntary contraction, CI [0.1;21.3]) than controls.ConclusionOur results suggest comparable ambulatory knee function 2 years after ACL-IB and ACL-R, with ACL-IB showing only small differences between legs. However, the differences between both ACL groups and controls suggest that function in the involved leg is not fully recovered and that ACL tear is not only a mechanical disruption but also affects the sensorimotor integrity, which may not be restored after surgery. The trend toward fewer abnormalities in knee moments and semitendinosus muscle function during walking after ACL-IB warrants further investigation and may underscore the importance of preserving the hamstring muscles as ACL agonists.Level of evidenceLevel III, case-control study.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT04429165 (12/06/2020).

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed with different techniques for independent and transtibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnels, but there is still no consensus on which approach leads to the best outcome.PurposeTo assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted on July 1, 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The influence of different femoral drilling techniques was analyzed through a meta-analysis in terms of patient-reported outcome measure scores, risk of complications, range of motion limitations, graft failure, and differential laxity. Subanalyses were performed to compare the different independent drilling techniques considered. Linear metaregression was performed to evaluate if the year of study publication influenced the results. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines.ResultsA total of 22 randomized controlled trials including 1658 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm score were higher with the independent drilling approach (mean difference [MD], 1.24 [P = .02] and 0.55 [P = .005], respectively). No difference was documented in terms of the risk of reinjury, but independent drilling led to reduced KT-1000 arthrometer-assessed anterior tibial translation (MD, 0.23; P = .01) and a higher probability of a negative postoperative pivot-shift test finding (risk ratio, 1.13; P = .04). There were no significant differences in IKDC objective or Tegner scores. A P value of .07 was found for the association between the year of the study and IKDC objective scores.ConclusionIndependent femoral tunnel drilling provided better results than the TT approach, although the difference was not clinically significant. No difference was observed in the risk of reinjury. Increasingly better results were seen among surgical procedures performed in more recent years. Among the independent drilling options, the anteromedial portal technique seemed to provide the most favorable outcomes. The lack of clinically significant differences and the promising outcomes reported with new modified TT techniques suggest the importance of correct placement, rather than the tunnel drilling approach, to optimize the results of ACL reconstruction.

Dataset Information

Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Portal ACL Reconstruction: Is a Hybrid Approach the Best?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets