Outcome of Single-Bundle Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Anteromedial Versus the Transtibial Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clinical Outcomes of a Novel Hybrid Transtibial Technique for Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Large Single-Center Case Series With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background

A novel hybrid transtibial (HTT) approach to femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been developed that circumvents the need for knee hyperflexion and orients the graft in the most anatomic position without sacrificing the tunnel length or aperture.

Hypothesis

Patients who underwent ACLR utilizing the HTT technique would achieve excellent patient-reported outcome scores and experience low rates of graft failure and reoperations.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary ACLR at a single institution between 2005 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with the HTT, anteromedial portal (AMP), and transtibial (TT) approaches were matched based on age, sex, and body mass index ±3 kg/m2. Demographic and surgical data as well as femoral tunnel angle measurements on anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were collected for the 3 groups. However, clinical outcomes were only reported for the HTT group because of concerns of graft heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 170 patients (median age, 26.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 18.0-35.0 years]) who underwent ACLR using the HTT approach were included. The median coronal- and sagittal-plane femoral tunnel angles were 47° (IQR, 42°-53°) and 40° (IQR, 34°-46°), respectively. The sagittal-plane femoral tunnel angles in the HTT group were significantly more horizontal compared with those in the TT group (P < .0001), whereas the coronal-plane femoral tunnel angles in the HTT group were found to be significantly more vertical compared with those in the AMP group (P = .001) and more horizontal compared with those in the TT group (P < .0001). The graft failure and reoperation rates in the HTT group at a minimum 2-year follow-up were 1.8% (3/170) and 4.7% (8/170), respectively. The complication rate was 6.5% (11/170), with the most common complication being subjective stiffness in 7 patients. The median Lysholm score was 89.5 (IQR, 79.0-98.0); the median International Knee Documentation Committee score was 83.9 (IQR, 65.5-90.8); and the median Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical and mental component summary scores were 55.0 (IQR, 52.6-55.9) and 56.2 (IQR, 49.1-59.3), respectively.

Conclusion

ACLR using the HTT technique was associated with low graft retear and revision surgery rates and good patient-reported outcome scores at medium-term follow-up and demonstrated femoral tunnel obliquity on postoperative radiographs that correlated with optimal parameters previously reported in cadaveric and biomechanical studies.

Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Technique in ACL Reconstruction and Osteoarthritis Incidence

Objective : Evaluate osteoarthritis incidence in patients that undergone ACL reconstruction using the transtibial technique, with a minimum of 5 years of follow up, with isolated ACL injury. Methods : Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction by the same surgeon using the transtibial technique with hamstrings graft and with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up, without other injuries during the surgical procedure, were selected to undergo imaging exams of the operated knee to assess the incidence of osteoarthritis. The obtained data were evaluated by descriptive statistics. Results : Forty-two patients (44 knees) were evaluated, with a mean age of 31 years old (SD: 8), being 23 right knees and 28 male patients. Mean time from surgery to imaging evaluation was 94.1 months (ranging from 60 to 154 months; SD: 28). Of the evaluated knees, 37 did not have osteoarthritis (83.3%) and 7 had (16.7%). Conclusion : ACL reconstruction with femoral tunnel performed through the transtibial technique in patients without other associated injuries in the operated knee, using hamstrings graft, with a minimum of 5 years of follow up, showed an osteoarthritis incidence of 16.7% in a mean follow-up of 94.1 months. Level Of Evidence V; Case Series.

Failure modes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The reason for graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is multifactorial. Controversies remain regarding the predominant factor and incidence of failure aetiology in the literature. This review aimed to provide a meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the relative proportion of various failure modes among patients with ACLR failure.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases were searched for literature on ACLR failure or revision from 1975 to 2021. Data related to causes for ACLR surgical failure were extracted, and a random effects model was used to pool the results, which incorporates potential heterogeneity. Failure modes were compared between different populations, research methods, graft types, femoral portal techniques, and fixation methods by subgroup analysis or linear regression. Funnel plots were used to identify publication bias and small-study effects.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies were analyzed, including 33 cohort studies and six registry-based studies reporting 6578 failures. The results showed that among patients with ACLR failure or revision, traumatic reinjury was the most common failure mode with a rate of 40% (95% CI: 35-44%), followed by technical error (34%, 95% CI: 28-42%) and biological failure (11%, 95% CI: 7-15%). Femoral tunnel malposition was the most common cause of the technical error (29%, 95% CI: 18-41%), with more than two times higher occurrence than tibial tunnel malposition (11%, 95% CI: 6-16%). Traumatic reinjury was the most common factor for ACLR failure in European populations and in recent studies, while technical errors were more common in Asian populations, earlier studies, and surgery performed using the transtibial (TT) portal technique. Biological factors were more likely to result in ACLR failure in hamstring (HT) autografts compared to bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts.

CONCLUSION

Trauma is the most important factor leading to surgical failure or revision following ACLR. Technical error is also an important contributing factor, with femoral tunnel malposition being the leading cause of error resulting in failure.

Minimizing the risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in athletes. A narrative review of the current evidence

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most common sport-related injuries and the request for ACL reconstructions is increasing nowadays. Unfortunately, ACL graft failures are reported in up to 34.2% in athletes, representing a traumatic and career-threatening event. It can be convenient to understand the various risk factors for ACL failure, in order to properly inform the patients about the expected outcomes and to minimize the chance of poor results. In literature, a multitude of studies have been performed on the failure risks after ACL reconstruction, but the huge amount of data may generate much confusion.The aim of this review is to resume the data collected from literature on the risk of graft failure after ACL reconstruction in athletes, focusing on the following three key points: individuate the predisposing factors to ACL reconstruction failure, analyze surgical aspects which may have significant impact on outcomes, highlight the current criteria regarding safe return to sport after ACL reconstruction.

Higher Incidence of Radiographic Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis With Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Positioning Compared With Anteromedial Femoral Tunnel Positioning During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anteromedial (AM) femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been reported by some authors to yield superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with the transtibial (TT) approach; however, differences in the subsequent rates of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) are not clear.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the influence of femoral tunnel positioning during primary ACLR on the development of radiographic PTOA.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-2019), and MEDLINE (1980-2019) were queried for all studies describing the development of PTOA after TT or AM ACLR. Data pertaining to patient demographics, ACLR technique, and radiographic PTOA were extracted. A meta-analysis utilizing the DerSimonian-Laird method for random effects was used to compare the weighted proportion of PTOA after ACLR between the TT and AM approaches.

RESULTS

There were 16 studies identified for inclusion with a total of 1546 patients. The mean follow-up across all studies was 10.9 years (range, 5.4-17.8 years). The mean follow-up in the AM and TT groups was 10.8 years (range, 5.4-17 years) and 11.4 years (range, 6-17.8 years), respectively. A total of 783 (50.6%) patients underwent TT ACLR. Of these patients, 401 (weighted mean, 49.3%) developed radiographic PTOA. A total of 763 (49.4%) patients underwent AM ACLR. Of these patients, 166 (mean, 21.8%) went on to develop radiographic PTOA. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly greater rate of PTOA after ACLR using a TT technique compared with an AM technique overall (49.3% vs 25.4%, respectively; P < .001) and when studies were stratified by 5- to 10-year (53.7% vs 14.2%, respectively; P < .001) and greater than 10-year (45.6% vs 31.2%, respectively; P < .0001) follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TT ACLR was associated with higher overall rates of radiographic PTOA compared with the AM ACLR approach. The rates of radiographic PTOA after ACLR with a TT approach were also significantly higher than using an AM approach when stratified by length of follow-up (5- to 10-year and >10-year follow-up).

Independent Versus Transtibial Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Background:

Anterior 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.

Purpose:

To assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A 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.

Results:

A 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.

Conclusion:

Independent 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.

All-inside technique in ACL reconstruction: mid-term clinical outcomes and comparison with AM technique (Hamstrings and BpTB grafts)

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to define the subjective and objective clinical results of all-inside surgical technique at a medium-term follow-up and to compare these results with those obtained from antero-medial (AM) ACL reconstruction technique using hamstrings (HS) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BpTB) grafts to detect eventual superiority of one technique to another.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of routinely collected data was conducted. Inclusion criteria were ACL reconstruction through all-inside technique or AM technique with HS or BpTB performed between January 2015 and May 2018; age between 15 and 30 year old; minimum 24 months' available follow-up. Exclusion criteria were contralateral ACL reconstruction; need for any other associated procedures during surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed with KOOS, Lysholm, Tegner scores and KT-1000 device.

RESULTS

According to the selection criteria, 157 patients were enrolled and divided subsequently into 3 groups: all-inside (51 patients), AM-HS (53 patients) and AM-BpTB (53 patients). A significant postoperative improvement of each score in all groups was detected. The mean KT-1000 was 3.1 ± 1.0 mm in all-inside group, while 3.3 ± 1.4 mm and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm in AM-HS and AM-BpTB groups, respectively. Comparing the results obtained, no statistically significant difference was found between the three techniques (p = 0.27). Statistically significant differences were highlighted in surgical duration: all-inside method was the longest (117'), followed by AM-BpTB surgery (101') and AM-HS technique (87').

CONCLUSIONS

The all-inside technique showed good postoperative results at medium-term follow-up. It could be a valuable solution for ACL reconstruction, especially in young patients due to its less invasiveness, despite surgical skills and time needed.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study compared clinical outcomes obtained after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) techniques, which comprise the conventional transtibial (cTT) and modified transtibial (mTT) techniques. This study included clinical randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective controlled trials with AM and TT techniques from the PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2020. Two independent evaluators verified the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcome measures analysed included the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, side-to-side difference (SSD), Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade and score. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 prospective and retrospective controlled trials were included with a total of 2202 patients. There were 1180 patients and 1022 patients in the AM and TT groups, respectively. Compared to the cTT group, superior postoperative results were observed in the AM group based on the negative rate of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, IKDC grade and score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and SSD (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the AM and mTT groups (p > 0.05). Compared to the conventional TT technique, the AM technique exhibited superior clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the modified TT and AM techniques had comparable results. With neither of the techniques (mTT or AM) producing significantly superior outcomes, surgeons can choose either of them depending on their preferences.

Superior Postoperative Stability and Functional Outcomes With Anteromedial Versus Transtibial Technique of Single-Bundle Autologous Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative stability and functional outcomes of anteromedial (AM)- and transtibial (TT)-based single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

A meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of single-bundle hamstring ACL reconstruction using the AM and TT techniques was performed. Prospective randomized controlled trials identified from searches of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were included in this review. The outcome measures analyzed included postoperative Lachman test and pivot-shift test results, side-to-side difference, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score.

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized controlled trials (654 patients) were included in this review. The AM technique, compared with the TT technique, resulted in superior postoperative stability based on the negative Lachman test rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.24; P = .03; 95% prediction interval [PI], 0.32 to 3.46), negative pivot-shift test rate (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.28; P = .002; 95% PI, 0.40 to 2.88), and side-to-side difference (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.32 mm; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.16; P < .0001; 95% PI, -0.55 to -0.09). Likewise, the AM technique contributed to superior postoperative functional outcomes based on the proportion of IKDC grade A findings (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.32; P = .03; 95% PI, 0.40 to 2.83) and the Lysholm score (WMD, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.41; P = .007; 95% PI, -0.22 to 1.86). However, the AM and TT techniques had comparable subjective IKDC scores (WMD, 0.98; 95% CI, -0.91 to 2.88; P = .31; 95% PI, -3.18 to 5.14) and Tegner activity scores (WMD, 0.32; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.86; P = .25; 95% PI, -3.84 to 4.48).

CONCLUSIONS

The AM method of single-bundle hamstring ACL reconstruction results in superior postoperative stability and functional outcomes compared with the TT method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

Editorial Commentary: Independent Femoral Tunnel Drilling Avoids Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Malpositioning: Advice From a Transtibial Convert

Optimal femoral anterior cruciate ligament graft placement has been extensively studied. The champions of transtibial reconstruction debate the backers of anteromedial portal and outside-in drilling. The holy grail is footprint restoration and how we best to get there. To me, creating the femur independently provides the best chance of finding that footprint by being unconstrained by the tibia. Anterior cruciate ligament surgery is challenging enough; decrease intraoperative stress and increase your likelihood of femoral footprint restoration by drilling it though the anteromedial portal.

ACL Reconstruction Graft Angle and Outcomes: Transtibial vs Anteromedial Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The importance of creating an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been receiving significant attention. The best technique by which to achieve this anatomic reconstruction continues to be debated. The two most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and the literature comparing the two remains uncertain.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this prospective comparative study, we aimed to compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles achieved using the anatomic transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques; compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles in knees that have undergone ACL reconstruction and knees with intact ACLs; and determine whether differences in the graft or tunnel angle produce differences in clinical outcomes, as measured using both physical exam and patient-reported outcomes, after ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone grafts using a TT or AM technique were included. Femoral graft angle (FGA), tibial graft angle (TGA), and sagittal orientation of the reconstructed ACL and contralateral native ACL were measured on post-operative magnetic resonance imaging. Post-operatively, patients underwent measurement of knee stability and completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) survey.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were enrolled (AM group, 14; TT group, 15); at follow-up, KOOS data were available for 26 patients (13 in each group). There were no differences in sagittal ACL graft angle between groups or in comparison with the normal knee. The FGA was more vertical after TT reconstructions; the TGA was comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in 2-year post-operative physical exam measurements or in KOOS scores.

CONCLUSION

Anatomic ACL angle was restored after reconstruction with both the TT and AM techniques, despite different FGAs. No significant differences in clinical outcome were noted between groups on physical exam or KOOS at 2 years after surgery. These results suggest that TT reconstruction results in a graft position similar to that seen in AM reconstruction and that the location of the intra-articular tunnel aperture matters more than the orientation of the tunnel.

Trauma and femoral tunnel position are the most common failure modes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To improve outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), it is important to understand the reasons for failure of this procedure. This systematic review was performed to identify current failure modes of ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and annual registries for ACLR failures. Studies were included when failure modes were reported (I) of ≥ 10 patients and (II) at a minimum of two-year follow-up. Modes of failure were also compared between different graft types and in femoral tunnel positions.

RESULTS

This review included 24 cohort studies and 4 registry-based studies (1 level I, 1 level II, 10 level III, and 16 level IV studies). Overall, a total of 3657 failures were identified. The most common single failure mode of ACLR was new trauma (38%), followed by technical errors (22%), combined causes (i.e. multiple failure mechanisms; 19%), and biological failures (i.e. failure due to infection or laxity without traumatic or technical considerations; 8%). Technical causes also played a contributing role in 17% of all failures. Femoral tunnel malposition was the most common cause of technical failure (63%). When specifically looking at the bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) or hamstring (HT) autografts, trauma was the most common failure mode in both, whereas biological failure was more pronounced in the HT group (4% vs. 22%, respectively). Technical errors were more common following transtibial as compared to anteromedial portal techniques (49% vs. 26%).

CONCLUSION

Trauma is the single leading cause of ACLR failure, followed by technical errors, and combined causes. Technical errors seemed to play a major or contributing role in large part of reported failures, with femoral tunnel malposition being the leading cause of failure. Trauma was also the most common failure mode in both BPTB and HT grafts. Technical errors were a more common failure mode following transtibial than anteromedial portal technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Isometric Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Using the Semitendinosus Tendon With Suspensory Tibial Fixation

The anterolateral ligament (ALL) plays an important role in isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by providing rotational stability in a combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolaterally injured knee. Although the ALL has been difficult to characterize anatomically, it originates near the lateral epicondyle of the distal femur and inserts into the proximal tibia between Gerdy's tubercle and the fibula head. Here, we describe an isometric ALL reconstruction using the semitendinosus tendon and an adjustable length loop suspensory tibial fixation. With this technique, it is possible to provide good stability and satisfactory results for patients with rotational instability of the knee.

Comparison of clinical results of anteromedial and transtibial femoral tunnel drilling in ACL reconstruction

BACKGROUND

A femoral bone tunnel in ACL reconstruction can be constructed from the outside in or from the inside out. When doing it inside out, the approach can be via the anteromedial (AM) portal or through the tibial bone tunnel. It has been suggested that better results might be expected by doing it anteromedially. Clinical results after femoral tunnel drilling via the AM or transtibial (TT) techniques in reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are presented.

METHODS

Three hundred patients with ACL injuries were chosen for this study from previously collected data on ACL reconstructions. They were divided into two groups: 150 patients treated with AM drilling and 150 treated with TT drilling. In the AM group, the reconstructions were performed using a semitendinosus graft with the Tape Locking Screw (TLS™) technique (n = 87) or Retrobutton™ femoral and BioScrew™ tibial fixation with a semitendinosus-gracilis graft (n = 63). In the TT group, the fixation method used was Rigidfix™ femoral and Intrafix tibial fixation with a semitendinosus-gracilis graft. The evaluation methods were clinical examination, knee scores (Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC) and instrumented laxity measurements (KT-2000™). Our aim was to evaluate if there was better rotational stability and therefore better clinical results when using AM drilling compared to TT drilling.

RESULTS

After excluding revision ACL reconstructions, there were 132 patients in the AM group and 133 in the TT group for evaluation. At the 2-year follow-up, there were 60 patients in the AM group (45.5%) and 58 in the TT group (43.6%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the evaluation methods used.

CONCLUSION

Both drilling techniques resulted in improved patient performance and satisfaction. We found no data supporting the hypothesis that the AM drilling technique provides better rotational stability to the knee.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN16407730. Retrospectively registered Jan 9th 2020.

Anatomic ACL reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature for radiographic prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) at a minimum of 10 years following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with anatomic vs. non-anatomic techniques. It was hypothesized that the incidence of OA at long-term follow-up would be lower following anatomic compared to non-anatomic ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies reporting OA prevalence by radiographic classification scales at a minimum of 10 years following ACLR with autograft. Studies were categorized as anatomic if they met or exceeded a score of 8 according the Anatomic ACL Reconstruction Scoring Checklist (AARSC), while those with a score less than 8 were categorized as non-anatomic/non-specified. Secondary outcomes included graft failure and measures of knee stability (KT-1000, Pivot Shift) and functional outcomes [Lysholm, Tegner, subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores]. OA prevalence on all radiographic scales was recorded and adapted to a normalized scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included, of which 5 achieved a score of 8 on the AARSC. Using a normalized OA classification scale, 87 of 375 patients (23.2%) had diagnosed OA at a mean follow-up of 15.3 years after anatomic ACLR and 744 of 1696 patients (43.9%) had OA at mean follow-up of 15.9 years after non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. The AARSC scores were 9.2 ± 1.3 for anatomic ACLR and 5.1 ± 1.1 for non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. Secondary outcomes were relatively similar between techniques but inconsistently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that anatomic ACLR, defined as an AARSC score ≥ 8, was associated with lower OA prevalence at long-term follow-up. Additional studies reporting long-term outcomes following anatomic ACLR are needed, as high-level studies of anatomic ACLR are lacking. The AARSC is a valuable resource in performing and evaluating anatomic ACLR. Anatomic ACLR, as defined by the AARSC, may reduce the long-term risk of post-traumatic OA following ACL injury to a greater extent than non-anatomic ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Anteromedial positioning of the femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is the best option to avoid revision: a single surgeon registry

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to compare the risk of revision of single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction between the anteromedial, transtibial and outside-in techniques.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from a single surgeon's registry. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon using the anteromedial portal, transtibial and outside-in technique, operated between 1 November 2003 to 31 December 2016, were eligible for inclusion. A minimum follow-up of 2 years was used, and the end-point of the study was revision surgery.

RESULTS

The total number of registered surgeries identified was 665; 109 were excluded, and 556 was the final sample. The overall revision rate was 8.7%. The transtibial technique presented 14/154 [9.9%] of revisions, the transportal 11/96 [11.4%] and the outside-in 22/306 [7.2%]. Separating the outside-in group into central outside-in and anteromedial (AM) outside-in, 18/219 [8.2%] was found for the central outside-in and 4/87 [4.5%] for the AM outside-in technique. Statistical evaluation of the first comparison (transtibial vs. transportal vs. outside-in) obtained p = (n.s.) The second comparison (transtibial vs. central transportal vs. central outside-in vs. AM outside-in, p = (n.s). Placement was also evaluated: high anteromedial placement (transtibial) vs. central (transportal and central outside-in technique) vs. AM placement (AM outside-in). The high AM placement presented 14/154 [9.9%] of revision, the central placement 29/315 [9.2%] and the AM placement 4/87 [4.5%], p = (n.s.) The AM placement was also compared with the other placements (high and central AM), p = (n.s.) CONCLUSION: Based on the registry of a single surgeon during 14 years of ACL reconstruction, the placement of the femoral tunnel in the high anteromedial region was associated with a rupture rate of 9.9%, central placement with 9.2% and anteromedial placement with 4.5%.

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.

High Risk of Tunnel Convergence in Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis

BACKGROUND

Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) is being increasingly added to primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to address residual anterolateral rotatory instability. However, currently there is a lack of knowledge on how close the femoral tunnels are when combining these procedures.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESES

To assess the risk of tunnel convergence in combined ACL and LET procedures using 2 different surgical techniques (Lemaire and MacIntosh). It was hypothesized that the risk of tunnel convergence would be greater when using the more distally located Lemaire position. The authors further hypothesized that tunnel proximity would be influenced by knee size.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were used for this study. In each specimen, an anatomic ACL femoral tunnel and 2 LET tunnels were drilled using the Lemaire and MacIntosh positions, respectively. After knee dissection, minimal distances between each ACL and LET tunnel were directly measured on the lateral femoral cortex. Furthermore, computed tomography scans were obtained to measure intertunnel convergence and lateral femoral condyle (LFC) width. On the basis of the average LFC width, knees were divided into large and small knees to determine a relationship between knee size and tunnel convergence.

RESULTS

Convergence of ACL and LET tunnels occurred in 7 of 10 cases (70%) using the Lemaire attachment position. All tunnel collisions occurred directly on the lateral femoral cortex, while intertunnel (intramedullary) conflicts were not observed. Collisions emerged in both small (n = 4) and large (n = 3) knees. Critical tunnel convergence did not occur using the MacIntosh position. The mean minimal distance between the LET and ACL tunnel using the Lemaire and MacIntosh positions was 3.1 ± 4.6 mm and 9.8 ± 5.4 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Tunnel convergence was more frequently observed in combined ACL and LET reconstruction using the Lemaire technique, independent of the knee size. LET femoral tunnel positioning according to the MacIntosh reconstruction was not associated with tunnel collision.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These findings help to raise the awareness for the risk of tunnel convergence in combined ACL and LET procedures. Surgeons may contemplate adjustments on the ACL femoral tunnel drilling technique or fixation device when applying an additional Lemaire procedure. However, in the absence of clinical outcome studies comparing different LET techniques, it remains unclear which technique is superior in a clinical setting.

Femoral tunnel position in chronic anterior cruciate ligament rupture reconstruction: randomized controlled trial comparing anatomic, biomechanical and clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral tunnel positioning techniques for the reconstruction of chronic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It is a randomized prospective study of 106 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction because of a chronic ACL rupture (55 AMT, 51 TT). Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Demographic, clinical and radiological data, including MRI grafts' anatomy and biomechanics intraoperative navigation system evaluation, were analyzed. Also, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Tegner Knee score, Lysholm Knee Score, Short-Form Health Survey and 4-point Likert Scale were evaluated.

RESULTS

The AM technique achieves a more anatomic graft than TT technique in both sagittal and coronal plane (6° approximately). Immediate postoperative biomechanical evaluation of the graft showed both techniques significantly improved translational and rotational laxity (p = 0.000). AMT showed superiority only in controlling internal rotation (p = 0.016). Both techniques reported significant improvement in all evaluated score scales, without differences between techniques. Independently of the femoral tunnel positioning technique, patients with cartilage lesion had worse clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that AMT achieves a more anatomical and biomechanically accurate graft allowing better control over internal rotation laxity; however, this does not lead to better clinical outcomes if we compare with TT in the reconstruction of chronic ACL rupture. Patients with chronic ACL rupture and cartilage lesion had worse clinical outcomes, independently the femoral tunnel positioning technique.

Effect of Operative Time on Short-Term Adverse Events After Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background:

A longer operative time has been previously recognized as a risk factor for short-term complications after various orthopaedic procedures; however, it has yet to be investigated as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Purpose:

To identify whether a longer operative time in ACL reconstruction is an independent risk factor for the development of postoperative complications, hospital readmissions, or an extended length of stay within 30 days of the index procedure.

Study Design:

Descriptive epidemiology study.

Methods:

Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction between 2005 and 2016 were identified using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Cases with concomitant procedures were excluded from the analysis. We evaluated the association between operative time and preoperative variables such as patient age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, and procedure. Correlations between adverse events and operative time, while controlling for the above preoperative variables, were calculated using multivariate Poisson regression with robust error variance.

Results:

A total of 14,159 procedures were included in this investigation. The mean patient age was 32.6 ± 10.8 years, the mean body mass index was 27.7 ± 6.5 kg/m², and the mean operative time was 89.7 ± 28.6 minutes. Patients who were between the ages of 18 and 30 years (mean operative time, 95.1 ± 27.8 minutes; relative risk [RR], 17.7; P < .001), male (mean operative time, 91.9 ± 28.3 minutes; RR, 4.7; P < .001), and nondiabetic (mean operative time, 89.8 ± 28.6 minutes; RR, 7.1; P = .011) were associated with a longer operative duration. The overall complication rate was 1.1%. After adjusting for demographic characteristics and procedures, 15-minute incremental increases in operative duration were associated with an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (RR, 1.12; P = .042), surgical site infections (RR, 1.21; P = .001), and sepsis (RR, 1.66; P < .001) as well as increased readmission rates (RR, 1.23; P = .001) and an extended length of stay (RR, 1.18; P = .008).

Conclusion:

While the overall adverse risk rate after ACL reconstruction remains low, marginal increases in operative time are associated with an increased risk of adverse events such as deep vein thrombosis, surgical site infections, sepsis, an extended length of stay, and readmissions. Thus, the operating physician and surgical staff should make all efforts to coordinate and prepare for each case to maximize surgical efficiency.

Anteromedial Portal Drilling Yielded Better Survivorship of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions When Comparing Recent Versus Early Surgeries With This Technique

PURPOSE

To compare anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral drilling hole techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register, comparing revision rates and clinical outcomes from 2 time periods, 2007 to 2010 and 2012 to 2015.

METHODS

A total of 8,386 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were registered between January 2007 to December 2010 and 8,818 in the period January 2012 to December 2015. Revision ACL was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the objective and subjective clinical outcomes. Crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The adjusted RR for revision surgery in the AM (2007-10) group compared with the TT (2007-10) group was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.78; P < .05), but when comparing the AM (2012-15) group with TT (2012-15) group, the RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.68-1.45; P = .96). One-year postoperative objective stability testing showed an RR = 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.60; P < .01) for rotational stability and an RR = 1.37 (95% CI, 0.99-1.89; P < .01) for sagittal stability when comparing AM (2007-10) to TT (2007-10). No significant difference in objective stability was found in the more recent period. Lastly, comparing the subjective scores, the AM (2012-15) had a significantly higher Tegner score 1 year postoperatively compared with the TT-group (2012-15).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found an increased RR of revision anterior cruciate ligament and rotational and sagittal instability 1 year postoperatively for the AM technique in the period from 2007 to 2010. However, there was no significant difference in revision surgery and objective measures between the techniques from 2012 to 2015. Nevertheless, a higher activity level was found in the AM group. The results could indicate that the results found in the period 2007 to 2010 may have been caused by a learning curve when introducing a new and more complex procedure (AM).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Differences between traumatic and non-traumatic causes of ACL revision surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and classify causes for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure. It was hypothesized that specific technical and biological reconstruction aspects would differ when comparing traumatic and non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients who experienced ACL reconstruction failure and underwent revision between 2009 and 2014 were analyzed. Based on a systematic failure analysis, including evaluation of technical information on primary ACL reconstruction and radiological assessment of tunnel positions, causes were classified into traumatic and non-traumatic mechanisms of failure; non-traumatic mechanisms were further sub-divided into technical and biologic causes. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and chi-squared tests were performed to determine differences between groups based on various factors including graft choice, fixation technique, technique of femoral tunnel positioning, tunnel malpositioning, and time to revision.

RESULTS

Non-traumatic, i.e., technical, and traumatic mechanisms of ACL reconstruction failure were found in 64.5 and 29.1% of patients, respectively. Biological failure was found only in 6.4% of patients. Non-anatomical femoral tunnel positioning was found the most common cause (83.1%) for technical reconstruction failure followed by non-anatomical tibial tunnel positioning (45.1%). There were strong correlations between non-traumatic technical failure and femoral tunnel malpositioning, transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques, femoral transfixation techniques as well as earlier graft failure (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Technical causes, particularly tunnel malpositioning, were significantly correlated with increased incidence of non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failure. Transtibial femoral tunnel positioning techniques and femoral transfixation techniques, showed an increased incidence of non-traumatic, earlier graft failure.

Anteromedial versus transtibial technique in single-bundle autologous hamstring ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome and postoperative complication between single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with an anteromedial (AM) technique and a transtibial (TT) technique.

Methods

The study includes clinical randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical outcomes of ACL reconstruction using the autologous hamstring tendon with an AM method and a TT method published up to September 2017 were retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. Relevant data were extracted and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the methodological quality. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome.

Results

Five RCTs were included, with a total of 479 patients: 239 patients and 240 patients in the AM group and the TT group, respectively. Assessing postoperative stability, better results were found in the AM group for the negative rate of the Lachman test (P < 0.05), the negative rate of the pivot-shift test (P < 0.05) and the side-to-side difference (P < 0.05). Assessing postoperative functional outcome, the AM group yielded superior results in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A (P < 0.05) and the Lysholm scores (P < 0.05) but had a comparable IKDC score (P > 0.05). In terms of postoperative complication, no significant difference was found between the AM group and the TT group (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The outcome of single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the AM technique is better than that with the TT technique in terms of postoperative stability and functional recovery of the knee.

Tunnel positioning assessment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 12months: Comparison between 3D CT and 3D MRI. A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Tunnel positioning assessment is a major issue after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. Historically, it used plain X-ray and, more recently, CT with 3D reconstruction. MRI is a reliable method of assessing ACL graft integrity and postoperative complications. To our knowledge, there have been no studies of efficacy in tunnel positioning assessment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of 3D MRI in assessing femoral and tibial tunnel positioning after ACL reconstruction. The hypothesis was that 3D MRI sequences with reconstruction are as accurate as 3D CT for tunnel positioning assessment in ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients who underwent an arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using hamstring graft were included in a prospective study. All patients were examined on 3D CT and 3D MRI at 12months post-surgery. Tunnel positioning was assessed on both imaging systems by a musculoskeletal radiologist and an orthopedic surgeon specialized in knee arthroscopy, both blind to all clinical data.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found between 3D CT and 3D MRI on coronal and sagittal reconstructions. For coronal assessment of tibial tunnel orifice, sagittal assessment of tibial tunnel orifice and sagittal assessment of femoral tunnel orifice, P-values ranged from 0.37 to 0.99, 0.051 to 0.64 and 0.19 to 0.59, respectively. For tibial and femoral tunnel angulation, P-values were respectively 0.52 and 0.29.

CONCLUSION

3D MRI is a reliable method to assess femoral and tibia tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction, compared to 3D CT as gold standard. Indeed, in our opinion 3D MRI could in the future replace CT for ACL reconstruction assessment, concerning not only the meniscus and ligaments but also tunnel position.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3; comparative prospective study.

High non-anatomic tunnel position rates in ACL reconstruction failure using both transtibial and anteromedial tunnel drilling techniques

INTRODUCTION

Although it is well known from cadaveric and biomechanical studies that transtibial femoral tunnel (TT) positioning techniques are associated with non-anatomic tunnel positions, controversial data exist as so far no clinical differences could have been found, comparing transtibial with anteromedial techniques (AM). The purpose of the study was to analyze if graft failure following TT ACL reconstruction was more commonly associated with non-anatomic tunnel position in comparison with the AM technique. We hypothesized that, compared to AM techniques, non-anatomic tunnel positions correlate with TT tunnel positioning techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 147 cases of ACL revision surgery were analyzed retrospectively. Primary ACL reconstructions were analyzed regarding the femoral tunnel drilling technique. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were determined on CT scans using validated radiographic measurement methods. Correlation analysis was performed to determine differences between TT and AM techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 101 cases were included, of whom 64 (63.4%) underwent the TT technique and 37 (36.6%) the AM technique for primary ACL reconstruction. Non-anatomic femoral tunnel positions were found in 77.2% and non-anatomical tibial tunnel positions in 40.1%. No correlations were found comparing tunnel positions in TT and AM techniques, revealing non-anatomic femoral tunnel positions in 79.7 and 73% and non-anatomic tibial tunnel positions in 43.7 and 35.1%, respectively (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable rates of non-anatomic femoral and tibial tunnel positions were found in ACL revisions with both transtibial and anteromedial femoral drilling techniques. Despite the potential of placing tunnels more anatomically using an additional AM portal, this technique does not ensure anatomic tunnel positioning. Consequently, the data highlight the importance of anatomic tunnel positioning in primary ACL reconstruction, regardless of the applied drilling technique.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tunnel Placement Using the Pathfinder Guide

Reconstruction techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) have evolved considerably over the past 3 decades. The femoral tunnel is most commonly made via a transtibial or separate anteromedial portal approach. Benefits and drawbacks for each of these techniques exist. Improper tunnel placement is the cause of failure for ACL reconstruction 70% of the time. We present a hybrid technique for femoral tunnel placement using the Pathfinder ACL guide, which attempts to give the surgeon many of the benefits of both the transtibial and anteromedial portal techniques without the drawbacks.

Technical Considerations in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction for Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics

As the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction continues to increase, the rate of revision surgery continues to climb. Revision surgery has inherent challenges that must be addressed in order to achieve successful results. The cause of the primary ACL reconstruction failure should be determined, and careful preoperative planning should be performed to address the cause(s) of failure. Each patient undergoing revision surgery should undergo a thorough history and physical examination, receive full length alignment radiographs, lateral radiographs, 45-degree flexion weight-bearing postero-anterior radiographs, and patellofemoral radiographs. 3-dimensional computed topography (CT) scan should be performed to assess tunnel position and widening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used to assess for intra-articular soft tissue pathology. Meniscal tears, meniscal deficiency, anterolateral capsule injuries, bony morphology, age, activity level, connective tissue diseases, infection, graft choice, and tunnel position can all impact the success of ACL reconstruction surgery. Meniscal lesions should be repaired, and in cases of persistent rotatory instability, extra-articular procedures may be indicated. Furthermore, osteotomies may be needed to correct malalignment or excess posterior tibial slope. Depending on the placement and condition of the original femoral and tibial tunnels, revision surgery may be performed in a single procedure or in a staged manner. In most cases, the surgery can be performed in one procedure. Regardless, the surgeon must communicate with the patient openly regarding the implications of revision ACL surgery and the treatment plan should be developed in a shared fashion between the surgeon and the patient.

Outcome of Patellar Tendon Versus 4-Strand Hamstring Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and investigate whether the clinical results of 4-strand hamstring tendon (HT) reconstruction are still inferior to that of the patellar tendon (PT).

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the English literature on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane register for papers that compared clinical outcomes of PT versus HT for ACL reconstruction. Outcome measures analyzed included rate of rerupture, KT-1000, International Knee Documentation Committee grade, Lachman, pivot shift, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, anterior knee pain, and discomfort on kneeling.

RESULTS

We included 19 studies from an initial 1,168 abstracts for the systematic review, and, eventually, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The study population consisted of a total of 1784 patients. The average follow-up duration was 58.8 months. We found significant differences in favor of the HT technique in the domains of anterior knee pain, kneeling pain, and restriction in the range of active extension ("extension deficit"). We found no differences between the PT and HT technique in terms of rerupture rate. There were no clinically significant differences for the outcomes of Lysholm score and Tegner Activity Scale as well as the KT-1000 side-to-side at maximum manual force.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary 4-strand HT ACL reconstruction is comparable with the PT technique in terms of clinical stability and postoperative functional status across most parameters studied. The HT technique carries lower risk of postoperative complications such as anterior knee pain, kneeling discomfort, and extension deficit. Primary ACL reconstruction using the 4-strand HT technique achieves clinical results that are comparable with the PT technique with significantly less postoperative complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis of Level I studies.

Technique for Arthroscopic-Assisted Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Doubled Tibialis Anterior Tendon

Advances in surgical technique and our knowledge of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy have resulted in a marked increase in options for ACL reconstruction. Currently, patient age and activity level, surgeon preference and experience, and cost are factors influencing the type of reconstruction recommended to address knee instability. We present a simplified transtibial method of ACL reconstruction using a single-bundle, doubled tibialis anterior allograft. This method uses fixation with a suspensory device on the femur and a bio-composite interference screw on the tibia. We recommend this simplified technique for primary ACL reconstruction because it minimizes total steps, thus limiting variance, maximizing efficiency, and reducing potential technical error.

The Influence of Knee Flexion Angle for Graft Fixation on Rotational Knee Stability During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of knee flexion angle for hamstring graft fixation, full extension (FE), or 30°, on acceleration of the knee motion during pivot-shift testing after either anatomic or nonanatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using triaxial accelerometry.

METHODS

Two types of ACL reconstructions (anatomic and nonanatomic) using 2 different angles of knee flexion during graft fixation (FE and 30°) were performed on 12 fresh-frozen human knees making 4 groups: anatomic-FE, anatomic-30°, nonanatomic-FE, and nonanatomic-30°. Manual pivot-shift testing was performed at ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, and ACL-reconstructed conditions. Three-dimensional acceleration of knee motion was recorded using a triaxial accelerometer.

RESULTS

The anatomic-30° group showed the smallest overall magnitude of acceleration among the ACL-reconstructed groups (P = .0039). There were no significant differences among the anatomic-FE group, the nonanatomic-FE group, and the nonantomic-30° group (anatomic-FE vs nonanatomic-FE, P = .1093; anatomic-FE vs nonanatomic-30°, P = .8728; and nonanatomic-FE vs nonanatomic-30°, P = .1093). After ACL transection, acceleration was reduced by ACL reconstruction with the exception of the nonanatomic-FE group that did not show a significant difference when compared with the ACL-deficient (P = .4537).

CONCLUSIONS

The anatomic ACL reconstruction with the graft fixed at 30° of knee flexion better restored rotational knee stability compared with FE. An ACL graft fixed with the knee at FE in anatomic position did not show a significant difference compared with the nonanatomic ACL reconstructions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Knee flexion angle at the time of graft fixation for ACL reconstruction can be considered to maximize the rotational knee stability.

Editorial Commentary: Meta-analyses Are on the Rise, but Are We Learning More?

The number of published meta-analyses in the arthroscopy literature is clearly on the rise. As this increase occurs, it is important to step back and refresh ourselves on the key features of meta-analyses.

Editorial Commentary: Average and Below-Average Surgeons May Struggle With the Anteromedial Portal Technique for Creating the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Femoral Socket

Average surgeons may struggle with the anteromedial (AM) portal technique for creating the anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket. The AM portal technique is technically challenging. The AM portal technique demonstrates better surgeon-recorded stability than the transtibial technique, but no clinical differences according to a review of published, comparative research studies.