Variability of landmark acquisition affects tunnel calculation in image-free ACL navigation

Computer-assisted navigation in ACL reconstruction improves anatomic tunnel placement with similar clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

While the use of navigation systems in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction theoretically improves tunnel placement accuracy and clinical outcomes, the existing literature remains inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the potential benefits of navigated ACL reconstruction on tunnel placement and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we evaluated a cohort of patients who underwent conventional or navigated (OrthoPilot system) primary ACL reconstruction at our institution from June 2004 to October 2009. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographic knee assessments were evaluated to assess postoperative tunnel positioning. Clinical outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee classification, Lysholm score, and Tegner score, were evaluated preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared and analysed using independent 2-sample t-tests and Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Sixty patients met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis, comprising of 26 navigated and 34 conventional reconstructions. Postoperative radiographs showed no differences in tibial tunnel position between both groups, but a significantly smaller deviation from the recommended position in the navigated group (navigated: 5.96 %; conventional: 7.92 %; p = 0.008). Femoral tunnel placements in the navigated group were significantly more perpendicularly away from the Blumensaat line (navigated: 38.90 %; conventional: 31.94 %; p = 0.001), with a greater deviation from recommended position (navigated: 11.00 %; conventional: 6.94 %; p = 0.009). There were no differences in 1-year postoperative clinical outcomes (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Navigated ACL reconstruction resulted in a more anatomic femoral tunnel placement and similar clinical outcomes as conventional reconstruction. Further research should be conducted to clarify the potential biomechanical and clinical impacts of navigated ACL reconstruction.

Current and future of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques

In recent years, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has generally yielded favorable outcomes. However, ACL reconstruction has not provided satisfactory results in terms of the rate of returning to sports and prevention of osteoarthritis (OA) progression. In this paper, we outline current techniques for ACL reconstruction such as graft materials, double-bundle or single-bundle reconstruction, femoral tunnel drilling, all-inside technique, graft fixation, preservation of remnant, anterolateral ligament reconstruction, ACL repair, revision surgery, treatment for ACL injury with OA and problems, and discuss expected future trends. To enable many more orthopedic surgeons to achieve excellent ACL reconstruction outcomes with less invasive surgery, further studies aimed at improving surgical techniques are warranted. Further development of biological augmentation and robotic surgery technologies for ACL reconstruction is also required.

Interbundle Impingement Pressure in Individualized and Nonindividualized Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study

Background:

Graft impingement is one of the main concerns in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLR). Impingement between the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles has been postulated to cause graft deterioration or rerupture, but this has not been thoroughly investigated, and the interbundle impingement pressure (IIP) has not been well researched.

Purpose:

To determine the IIP between the AM and PL bundles in the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and in DB-ACLR with individualized and nonindividualized double-tunnel placement.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 30 fresh-frozen, nonpaired, human cadaveric knees were randomly divided into 3 groups of 10 knees: native intact ACL (NI group), DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the preserved remnant procedure (individualized reconstruction) (PR group), and DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the bony landmark procedure (nonindividualized reconstruction) (BL group). Pressure sensors were inserted between the AM and PL bundles. The knee was moved passively from full extension to full flexion, and the IIP between the 2 ACL bundles was measured every 15°. Similarly, the impingement pressure was measured between the ACL and intercondylar roof and between the ACL and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL).

Results:

No significant differences were found in the maximum, mean, or minimum ACL-roof and ACL-PCL impingement pressures among the 3 groups. The IIP significantly increased when the knee joint was flexed >120° in all 3 groups (P < .001). Compared with the other 2 groups, the BL group had significantly higher maximum and mean IIP throughout the range of knee movement (P < .001) and from maximum extension to 120° of flexion (P < .001). The BL group also had significantly higher minimum IIP than the other 2 groups when knee flexion was >120° (P < .001). No significant differences were seen in maximum, minimum, or mean IIP between the NI and PR groups.

Conclusion:

The PR procedure (individualized DB-ACLR) was more consistent with the interbundle biomechanical conditions of the native ACL, whereas the BL procedure (nonindividualized DB-ACLR) had higher maximum and mean IIP. The IIP was higher than the ACL–intercondylar roof or ACL-PCL pressures, and it increased significantly when knee flexion was >120°.

Clinical Relevance:

These data suggest that surgeons can perform individualized DB-ACLR using preserved remnants for tunnel placement as impingement-free DB-ACLR.

Intraoperative fluoroscopy shows better agreement and interchangeability in tibial tunnel location during single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with postoperative three-dimensional computed tomography compared with an intraoperative image-free navigation system

BACKGROUND

Fluoroscopy and navigation systems provide an accurate and reproducible method of guiding anatomical tunnel positioning during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The aim was to evaluate the differences in tibial tunnel location assessed by both an intraoperative navigation system and fluoroscopy, validated using a one-week postoperative three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT).

METHODS

The tibial tunnel location in a consecutive series of 35 patients who received a single-bundle ACLR was evaluated by intraoperative navigation system, fluoroscopic image and compared with postoperative 3DCT position. The location to the anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (ML) direction were compared between all three methods.

RESULTS

The tibial tunnel locations were 46.7 ± 4.5%, 44.5 ± 1.9%, and 43.6 ± 2.4% in ML direction, and 42.8 ± 7.6%, 37.9 ± 3.8%, and 37.9 ± 3.7% in AP direction using an intraoperative navigation system, fluoroscopic image and postoperative 3DCT, respectively. Significant differences between the navigation system and fluoroscopic image (ML, P = 0.001; AP, P = 0.006), and the navigation system and 3DCT (ML, P = 0.001; AP, P < 0.001) were seen. However, there was no significant difference between fluoroscopy and 3DCT (ML, P = 0.315; AP, P = 0.999). There was a significant lack of agreement for analyses measured using a navigation system and 3DCT. Fluoroscopy and 3DCT demonstrated an acceptable agreement (ML, r_pt = -0.21, P = 0.232; AP, r_pt = 0.04, P = 0.826).

CONCLUSIONS

A tibial tunnel location assessed by intraoperative fluoroscopy shows better agreement and interchangeability with one-week postoperative 3DCT validation during single-bundle ACLR compared with an intraoperative image-free navigation system.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of anterior cruciate ligament injury - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

This clinical guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, endorsed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Japanese Orthopaedic Society of Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine (JOSKAS).

METHODS

The JOA ACL guideline committee revised the previous guideline based on "Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014", which proposed a desirable method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan. Furthermore, the importance of "the balance of benefit and harm" was also emphasized. This guideline consists of 21 clinical questions (CQ) and 23 background questions (BQ). For each CQ, outcomes from the literature were collected and evaluated systematically according to the adopted study design.

RESULTS

We evaluated the objectives and results of each study in order to make a decision on the level of evidence so as to integrate the results with our recommendations for each CQ. For BQ, the guideline committee proposed recommendations based on the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is intended to be used by physicians, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists, and athletic trainers managing ACL injuries. We hope that this guideline is useful for appropriate decision-making and improved management of ACL injuries.

Current use of navigation system in ACL surgery: a historical review

PURPOSE

The present review aims to analyse the available literature regarding the use of navigation systems in ACL reconstructive surgery underling the evolution during the years.

METHODS

A research of indexed scientific papers was performed on PubMed and Cochrane Library database. The research was performed in December 2015 with no publication year restriction. Only English-written papers and related to the terms ACL, NAVIGATION, CAOS and CAS were considered. Two reviewers independently selected only those manuscripts that presented at least the application of navigation system for ACL reconstructive surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-six of 394 articles were finally selected. In this analysis, it was possible to review the main uses of navigation system in ACL surgery including tunnel positioning for primary and revision surgery and kinematic assessment of knee laxity before and after different surgical procedures. In the early years, until 2006, navigation system was mainly used to improve tunnel positioning, but since the last decade, this tool has been principally used for kinematics evaluation. Increased accuracy of tunnel placement was observed using navigation surgery, especially, regarding femoral, 42 of 146 articles used navigation to guide tunnel positioning. During the following years, 82 of 146 articles have used navigation system to evaluate intraoperative knee kinematic. In particular, the importance of controlling rotatory laxity to achieve better surgical outcomes has been underlined.

CONLUSIONS

Several applications have been described and despite the contribution of navigation systems, its potential uses and theoretical advantages, there are still controversies about its clinical benefit. The present papers summarize the most relevant studies that have used navigation system in ACL reconstruction. In particular, the analysis identified four main applications of the navigation systems during ACL reconstructive surgery have been identified: (1) technical assistance for tunnel placement; (2) improvement in knowledge of the kinematic behaviour of ACL and other structures; (3) comparison of effectiveness of different surgical techniques in controlling laxities; (4) navigation system performance to improve the outcomes of ACL reconstruction and cost-effectiveness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Clinical advantages of image-free navigation system using surface-based registration in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical advantages of a navigation system developed with an emphasis on attaining an appropriate femoral tunnel length and posterior wall margin with no posterior wall blowout, as well as having accurate tunnel positioning, in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

Ten freshly frozen human knees were transected at mid-femur and mid-tibia. Each knee specimen underwent arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the outside-in technique, with two knees by manual ACLR (control group) and another eight knees by only the navigational ACLR without arthroscopic assistance (experimental group). The position/orientation information of tunnel entry point, tunnel length, and posterior wall distance of pre-, intra-, and postoperative tunnel were recorded, and the reliability and errors among them were evaluated.

RESULTS

From comparison of the 3D models for preoperative planning and postoperative reconstruction, the mean differences for navigational femoral tunnelling and arthroscopic-assisted femoral tunnelling were recorded, respectively: (1) tunnel entry position, 1.4 mm (SD 0.3) versus 4.9 mm; (2) tunnel length, 0.7 mm (SD 0.2), similar to 0.6 mm in arthroscopic-assisted femoral tunnelling, and (3) posterior wall distance, 0.5 mm (SD 0.2), much smaller than 4.7 mm for arthroscopic-assisted femoral tunnelling. The intraclass correlation coefficients, calculated to determine the accuracy and reliability of navigational femoral tunnelling, showed excellent internal consistency that ranged from 0.965 to 0.989 for tunnel length and from 0.810 to 0.953 for posterior wall distance.

CONCLUSION

Navigation systems with enhancement of the registration accuracy by the developed system are feasible in anatomical ACLR, in reducing surgical failures such as short tunnel length or posterior wall breakage of distal femur. The present study revealed that computer navigation could aid in avoiding major mistakes in exact positioning and posterior wall blowout and help in attaining appropriate length for femoral tunnelling in anatomical ACLR.

Placement of Double Tunnels in ACL Reconstruction Using Bony Landmarks Versus Existing Footprint Remnant: A Prospective Clinical Study With 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLR) are becoming controversial. One of the main reasons for the controversy is the techniques for bone tunnel placement. The common technique to place the bone tunnels is to use bony landmarks, while a new approach uses footprint remnants.

PURPOSE

To investigate if placement of double tunnels using bony landmarks produces the same clinical results as that of using existing footprint remnants.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 72 male patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 36 patients each: (A) DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the footprint remnant procedure (EF group) and (B) DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the bony landmark procedure (BL group). All patients were evaluated before and after surgery. Outcomes were measured by KT-2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference, pivot-shift test, and Tegner, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. Second-look arthroscopic evaluations were performed in 59 cases (28 and 31 cases in the EF and BL groups, respectively).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 36.9±4.8 months. Postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography scans showed that bone sockets were variable on both femoral and tibial sides in the EF group and almost consistent in the BL group. All of the evaluation indexes were significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. There were no revision cases in the EF group and 2 in the BL group. The EF group showed a faster range of motion (ROM) recovery (at 0° to 120°) than did the BL group. At final follow-up, there was no significant difference between the EF and BL groups in Tegner score (5.88±1.39 vs 5.16±1.76; P=.058) or pivot-shift test (34 vs 32; P=.067). The EF group had a larger proportion of patients with IKDC grade A (normal) (33 vs 24; P<.020), smaller side-to-side difference (0.68±0.38 mm vs 1.23±0.61 mm; P<.001), higher Lysholm score (91.29±4.90 vs 88.71±5.09; P=.032), and better second-look arthroscopic evaluations for graft quality in the anteromedial (P=.034), posterolateral (P=.015), and combined bundles (P=.029) compared with the BL group.

CONCLUSION

Although both techniques provided satisfactory clinical results, DB-ACLR using the existing footprint remnant for tunnel placement showed better functional results with respect to faster ROM recovery, higher subjective outcome scores, and better arthroscopic second-look with no revision cases.