Proximal, Distal, and Combined Fixation Within the Tibial Tunnel in Transtibial Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Time-Zero Biomechanical Study In Vitro

Biomechanical comparison of proximal, distal, and anatomic tibial tunnel for transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

No consensus has been reached on the optimal position of PCL tibial tunnel. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of proximal, distal and anatomic tibial tunnel in transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in-vitro model of transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was simulated using porcine tibias and bovine extensor tendons. Two models of biomechanical testing, load-to-failure loading, and cyclic loading, were performed in this study. The load-to-failure loading found that distal tibial tunnel resulted in greater ultimate load and yield load than the anatomic and proximal tunnel group (p < 0.05), whereas there were no significant differences in mean tensile stiffness among three groups (p > 0.05). The cyclic loading found no differences in the graft displacement at 250, 500, and 1000 cycles among three groups (p > 0.05). It was found that distal tibial tunnel showed superior ultimate load and yield load in load-to-failure loading testing compared with proximal and anatomic tibial tunnels, whereas no significant difference was found in terms of the mean displacement of the survived grafts in cyclic loading testing among three groups.

POSTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: ARE THE RESULTS SIMILAR TO ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION?

Objective

To report and compare the results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

Methods

In total, 42 patients were retrospectively evaluated, 20 with isolated PCL injuries (group 1) and 22 with isolated ACL ones (group 2) who were subjected to arthroscopic ligament reconstruction with autologous grafts and followed up for at least two years. To evaluate the results in group 1, objective IKDC and Lysholm scores, posterior drawer tests, and evaluations by a KT-1000 arthrometer were used, whereas for group 2, subjective IKDC and Lysholm score and the Lachman test were employed. To compare groups, objective IKDC and Lysholm scores and assessment via a KT-1000 arthrometer were considered.

Results

Intragroup analysis showed improved results for all variables (p < 0.001) in both groups. Comparisons between groups showed a significant difference in objective IKDC scores (p < 0.001), but no such disparities for Lysholm ones (p = 0.052), clinical tests (p = 0.058) or evaluation by KT-1000 (p = 0.129).

Conclusion

Treatment restored knee stability and function in both groups. Comparisons between groups showed that PCL reconstructions had inferior results than ACL ones according to patients' objective IKDC scores. Level of Evidence II, Retrospective Study.

Surgically adjust tibial tunnel in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament single-bundle reconstruction: A time-zero biomechanical study in vitro

BACKGROUND

The anatomical positioning of the graft during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is of great significance for restoring normal knee kinematics and preventing early joint degeneration. Therefore, the adjustment of the mispositioned guide pin becomes extremely important. Our research aims to test the time-zero biomechanical properties in adjusting inaccurate guide pins to the center of the tibial footprint in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament single-bundle reconstruction.

METHODS

Porcine tibias and bovine extensor tendons were used to simulate a transtibial ACL reconstruction in vitro. Load-to failure testing was carried out in 4 groups: control group (n = 45): the guide pin was drilled at the center of the ACL footprint; group I, group II and group III (n = 45, respectively): the guide pin was respectively drilled 1 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm away from the center of the ACL footprint. In the experimental groups, a small tunnel with a 4.5 mm reamer is made and the guide pin is shifted to the center of the footprint. All the reamed tibias were scanned by CT to measure the area of the tunnel in the footprint, and time-zero biomechanical properties were recorded.

RESULTS

All graft-tibia complexes failed because the grafts slipped past the interference screws. Compare to control group, the ultimate load, yield load, and tunnel exit area in group III decreased significantly (p < 0.05). Regarding to the ultimate load, yield load, tensile stiffness, twisting force and tunnel exit area, t-test showed no significant differences between control group and group I, group II respectively (p > 0.05). Pearson test showed that tunnel exit area was negatively correlated with other characteristics (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical adjustment of the guide pin to the center of the tibial footprint may have significant influence in time-zero biomechanical properties in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament single-bundle reconstruction when the adjusted tibial tunnel was significantly enlarged compare to the standard tibial tunnel.

What Is the Maximum Tibial Tunnel Angle for Transtibial PCL Reconstruction? A Comparison Based on Virtual Radiographs, CT Images, and 3D Knee Models

BACKGROUND

To minimize the killer turn caused by the sharp margin of the tibial tunnel exit in transtibial PCL reconstruction, surgeons tend to maximize the angle of the tibial tunnel in relation to the tibial plateau. However, to date, no consensus has been reached regarding the maximum angle for the PCL tibial tunnel.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this study we sought (1) to determine the maximum tibial tunnel angle for the anteromedial and anterolateral approaches in transtibial PCL reconstruction; (2) to compare the differences in the maximum angle based on three measurement methods: virtual radiographs, CT images, and three-dimensional (3D) knee models; and (3) to conduct a correlation analysis to determine whether patient anthropomorphic factors (age, sex, height, and BMI) are associated with the maximum tibial tunnel angle.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2020, 625 patients who underwent CT scanning for knee injuries were retrospectively reviewed in our institution. Inclusion criteria were patients 18 to 60 years of age with a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of knee osteoarthritis less than 1 and CT images that clearly showed the PCL tibial attachment. Exclusion criteria were patients with a history of tibial plateau fracture, PCL injuries, tumor, and deformity around the knee. Finally, 104 patients (43 males and 61 females, median age: 38 [range 24 to 56] years, height: 165 ± 9 cm, median BMI: 23 kg/cm2 [range 17 to 31]) were included for analysis. CT data were used to create virtual 3D knee models, and virtual true lateral knee radiographs were obtained by rotating the 3D knee models. Virtual 3D knee models were used as an in vitro standard method to assess the true maximum tibial tunnel angle of anteromedial and anterolateral approaches in transtibial PCL reconstruction. The tibial tunnel's entry was placed 1.5 cm anteromedial and anterolateral to the tibial tubercle for the two approaches. To obtain the maximum angle, a 10-mm- diameter tibial tunnel was simulated by making the tibial tunnel near the posterior tibial cortex. The maximum tibial tunnel angle, tibial tunnel lengths, and perpendicular distances of the tunnel's entry point to the tibial plateau were measured on virtual radiographs, CT images, and virtual 3D knee models. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the differences in the maximum angle among groups, and correlation analysis was performed to identify the relationship of the maximum angle and anthropomorphic factors (age, sex, height, and BMI).

RESULTS

The maximum angle of the PCL tibial tunnel relative to the tibial plateau was greater in the anteromedial group than the anterolateral group (58° ± 8° versus 50° ± 8°, mean difference 8° [95% CI 6° to 10°]; p < 0.001). The maximum angle of the PCL tibial tunnel was greater in the virtual radiograph group than the CT image (68° ± 6° versus 49° ± 5°, mean difference 19° [95% CI 17° to 21°]; p < 0.001), the anteromedial approach (68° ± 6° versus 58° ± 8°, mean difference 10° [95% CI 8° to 12°]; p < 0.001), and the anterolateral approach (68° ± 6° versus 50° ± 8°, mean difference 18° [95% CI 16° to 20°]; p < 0.001), but no difference was found between the CT image and the anterolateral groups (49° ± 5° versus 50° ± 8°, mean difference -1° [95% CI -4° to 1°]; p = 0.79). We found no patient anthropomorphic characteristics (age, sex, height, and BMI) that were associated with the maximum angle.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons should note that the mean maximum angle of the tibial tunnel relative to the tibial plateau was greater in the anteromedial than anterolateral approach in PCL reconstruction, and the maximum angle might be overestimated on virtual radiographs and underestimated on CT images.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To perform PCL reconstruction more safely, the findings of this study suggest that the PCL drill system should be set differently for the anteromedial and anterolateral approaches, and the maximum angle measured by intraoperative fluoroscopy should be reduced 10° for the anteromedial approach and 18° for the anterolateral approach. Future clinical or cadaveric studies are needed to validate our findings.

The Permissive Safe Angle of the Tibial Tunnel in Transtibial Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Three-Dimensional Simulation Study

Objective

To determine the permissive safe angle (PSA) of the tibial tunnel in transtibial posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction based on a three‐dimensional (3D) simulation study.

Methods

This was a computer simulation study of transtibial PCL reconstruction using 3D knee models. CT images of 90 normal knee joints from 2017 to 2020 were collected in this study, and 3D knee models were established based on CT data. The tunnel approaches were subdivided into the anterior 1/3 of the anteromedial tibia (T1), middle 1/2 of the anteromedial tibia (T2), the tibial crest (T3), anterior 1/3 of the anterolateral tibia (T4), middle 1/2 of the anterolateral tibia (T5). Five tibial tunnels (T1–T5) were simulated on the 3D knee models. The PSAs, in different tibial tunnel approaches were measured, and subgroup analyses of sex, age and height were also carried out.

Results

The mean PSAs of the tibial tunnels with 5 different approaches (T1–T5) were 58.49° ± 6.82°, 61.14° ± 6.69°, 56.12° ± 7.53°, 52.01° ± 8.89° and 49.90° ± 10.53°, respectively. The differences of the mean PSAs between the anteromedial and anterolateral approaches were significant (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference of the mean PSA value between the two anteromedial tibial tunnel approaches (T1–T2) (P > 0.05), as well as between the two anterolateral tibial tunnel approaches (T4–T5). The patient's anthropomorphic characteristics of sex, age, and height were not associated with the PSAs.

Conclusions

The PSA varied with the anteromedial, tibial crest and anterolateral approaches for transtibial PCL reconstruction, and surgeons should limit the PCL drill guide by referring to the specific PSA for different surgical approaches.

Biomechanical evaluation of a novel transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using high-strength sutures in a porcine bone model

Background:

Multiple techniques are commonly used for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. However, the optimum method regarding the fixation of PCL reconstruction after PCL tears remains debatable. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties among three different tibial fixation procedures for transtibial single-bundle PCL reconstruction.

Methods:

Thirty-six porcine tibias and porcine extensor tendons were randomized into three fixation study groups: the interference screw fixation (IS) group, the transtibial tubercle fixation (TTF) group, and TTF + IS group (n = 12 in each group). The structural properties of the three fixation groups were tested under cyclic loading and load-to-failure. The slippage after the cyclic loading test and the stiffness and ultimate failure load after load-to-failure testing were recorded.

Results:

After 1000 cycles of cyclic testing, no significant difference was observed in graft slippage among the three groups. For load-to-failure testing, the TTF + IS group showed a higher ultimate failure load than the TTF group and the IS group (876.34 ± 58.78 N vs. 660.92 ± 77.74 N [P < 0.001] vs. 556.49 ± 65.33 N [P < 0.001]). The stiffness in the TTF group was significantly lower than that in the IS group and the TTF + IS group (92.77 ± 20.16 N/mm in the TTF group vs. 120.27 ± 15.66 N/m in the IS group [P = 0.001] and 131.79 ± 17.95 N/mm in the TTF + IS group [P < 0.001]). No significant difference in the mean stiffness was found between the IS group and the TTF + IS group (P = 0.127).

Conclusions:

In this biomechanical study, supplementary fixation with transtibial tubercle sutures increased the ultimate failure load during load-to-failure testing for PCL reconstruction.

Whether sutures reduce the graft laceration caused by interference screw in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A biomechanical study in vitro

Background

Interference screw is commonly used for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, previous studies had reported that the insertion of interference screws significantly caused graft laceration. The purposes of this study were to (1) quantitatively evaluate the graft laceration from one single insertion of PEEK interference screws; and (2) determine whether different types of sutures reduced the graft laceration after one single insertion of interference screws in ACL reconstruction.

Methods

The in-vitro ACL reconstruction model was created using porcine tibias and bovine extensor digitorum tendons of bovine hind limbs. The ends of grafts were sutured using three different sutures, including the bioabsorbable, Ethibond and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) sutures. Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) interference screws were used for tibial fixation. This study was divided into five groups (n = 10 in each group): the non-fixed group, the non-sutured group, the absorbable suture group, the Ethibond suture group and the UHMWPE suture group. Biomechanical tests were performed using the mode of pull-to-failure loading tests at 10 mm/min. Tensile stiffness (newtons per millimeter), energy absorbed to failure (in joules) and ultimate load (newtons) were recorded for analysis.

Results

All prepared tendons and bone specimens showed similar characteristics (length, weight, and pre-tension of the tendons, tibial bone mineral density) among all groups (P > 0.05). The biomechanical tests demonstrated that PEEK interference screws significantly caused the graft laceration (P < 0.05). However, all sutures (the bioabsorbable, Ethibond and UHMWPE sutures) did not reduce the graft laceration in ACL reconstruction (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our biomechanical study suggested that the ultimate failure load of grafts was reduced of approximately 25 % after one single insertion of a PEEK interference screw in ACL reconstruction. Suturing the ends of the grafts using different sutures (absorbable, Ethibond and UHMWPE sutures) did not decrease the graft laceration caused by interference screws.

Editorial Commentary: The Posterior Cruciate Ligament Posteromedial Bundle Is Small but Vital to Posterior Cruciate Ligament Biomechanics: Don't Ignore the Underdog

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction leads to outcomes less favorable than those of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. In recent years, we have seen a surge of publications regarding PCL anatomy, isometry, and reconstruction techniques. PCL reconstruction has been revolutionized with lessons learned from analysis of PCL behavior, such as the distinct role of the posteromedial bundle (PMB) in the biomechanics of the knee at different flexion angles, as well as its co-dominant role with its counterpart, the anterolateral bundle. With the knee in extension, the PMB serves to restrict posterior translation, whereas in knee flexion, the PMB restricts internal rotation. It is rather too early to know whether the biomechanical advantage of double-bundle reconstruction will result in better clinical outcomes in the long term; however, the increased interest and the refinement of both single- and double-bundle reconstruction techniques will certainly advance our knowledge, ultimately translating into better patient outcomes.

Editorial Commentary: Biomechanics of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Tibial Fixation

The surgical outcome of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is generally accepted as inferior to that of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Numerous studies have reported causes of failure, and fixation stability would be one of the most important factors for a successful posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The fixation method, fixation area, graft construct, and effective length of the graft can all be consideration points. Strong fixation over a broad area that reduces the effective length of the graft and is composed of a multistranded graft would be the best.