Management for delayed and symptomatic pseudoaneurysm by iatrogenic popliteal artery injury during posterior cruciate ligament surgery

An in-vitro three-dimensional surgical simulation technique to predict tibial tunnel length in transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

During the transtibial posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction, drilling depth excessively longer than the tibial tunnel length (TTL) is an important reason to cause popliteal neurovascular bundle injury when preparing the tibial tunnel. This study aims to develop an in-vitro three-dimensional surgical simulation technique to determine the TTL in anteromedial (AM) and anterolateral (AL) approaches.

METHODS

A total of 63 knees' 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography models were included in this study. The SuperImage system was used to reconstruct the 3D knee model and locate the tibial PCL site. The established 3D knee model and the coordinates of the tibial PCL site were imported into Rhinoceros 3D modeling software to simulate AM and AL tibial tunnel approaches with different tibial tunnel angles (TTA). The TTL and the tibial tunnel height (TTH) were measured in this study.

RESULTS

In AM and AL tibial tunnel approaches, the TTL showed a strong correlation with the TTA (for AM: r = 0.758, p < 0.001; for AL: r = 0.727, p < 0.001). The best fit equation to calculate the TTL based on the TTA was Y = 1.04X + 14.96 for males in AM approach, Y = 0.93X + 17.76 for males in AL approach, Y = 0.92X + 14.4 for females in AM approach, and Y = 0.94X + 10.5 for females in AL approach.

CONCLUSION

Marking the TTL on the guide pin or reamer could help to avoid the drill bit over-penetrated into the popliteal space to damage the neurovascular structure.

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.