Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a flexible reamer system and 70° arthroscope

Flexible reamers create comparable anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction femoral tunnels without the hyperflexion required with rigid reamers: 3D-CT analysis of tunnel morphology in a randomised clinical trial

PURPOSE

The hyperflexion required for femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can be challenging in patients with increased body habitus or musculature. Whilst allowing femoral tunnel creation without hyperflexion, additional benefits of flexible reamers have been proposed in terms of tunnel dimensions. The purpose of this study was to examine whether these theoretical benefits are seen in a clinical study.

METHODS

Fifty adult patients (with isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture) were randomised to reconstruction with either flexible or rigid femoral reamers. Femoral tunnel drilling was performed at 100° flexion (flexible system) or maximal hyperflexion (rigid system). Otherwise, the procedure was standardised. Femoral tunnel measurements were performed by a consultant musculoskeletal radiologist who was blinded to the method of femoral drilling. Tunnel position, length and angles (axial and coronal) were measured alongside aperture shape and exit point using three-dimensional computed tomography 3-6 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

With no difference in tunnel position, tunnel length was found to increase with the use of the flexible system (37.8 ± 3.7 vs 35.0 ± 4.4 mm; p = 0.024). In addition, the exit point and fixation device were more anterior on the lateral femur using the flexible reamers (p = 0.016). No difference was seen in either tunnel angles or aperture shape. One case of incomplete posterior blow-out was seen in each of the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This comparative study shows that flexible reamers can reproduce a desired femoral tunnel position with only small improvements of no clinical relevance. As this can be achieved without hyperflexing the knee, these systems can be used for all patients (even when hyperflexion is a challenge).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Single and Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Supported by the Comprehensive Early Rehabilitation Program (CERP)

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the level of functional condition in patients who had rehabilitation with the comprehensive early rehabilitation program (CERP) following either single bundle (SB) or double bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using semitendinosus-gracilis tendon graft (ST-G) method. We hypothesized that 12 weeks after reconstruction followed by a rehabilitation program, there would be a difference in clinical results and functional activity between patients.

Material/Methods

This study included 94 patients who had rehabilitation with CERP after knee surgery for a knee injury from a recreational sport. There were 49 patients in Group 1 (mean age, 36.5 years) who had CERP after SB ACLR, and 45 patients in Group 2 (mean age, 35.6 years) who had CERP after DB ACLR. Functional condition was tested using the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and knee stability was measured using KT-2000. The first examination was performed before CERP and the second examination was performed 12 weeks later.

Results

The level of functional condition in both groups was similar before rehabilitation with CERP, with no significant difference (P<0.958) and was considered relatively low. In the second examination, 12 weeks after starting CERP, the patients improved in both groups. The improvement was larger in the SB ACLR Group 1 than in the DB ACLR Group 2. The difference was significant (P<0.005). However, the patients in Group 2 achieved better knee stability scores in the KT-2000 examination than the patients in Group 1. The difference was significant (P=0.035).

Conclusions

We found that the patients from both groups after 12 weeks of CERP achieved an improvement in stability and functional activity within normal limits. However, SB ACLR was more effective than DB ACLR in terms of the level of functionality achieved with CERP but was less effective in terms of knee stability.

Graft Inclination Angles in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Vary Depending on Femoral Tunnel Reaming Method: Comparison Among Transtibial, Anteromedial Portal, and Outside-In Retrograde Drilling Techniques

PURPOSE

To compare graft coronal and sagittal inclination angles in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction performed by different femoral tunnel drilling techniques with respect to intact native ACL.

METHODS

In total, 72 patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. The inclusion criteria were complete ACL rupture and patient age between 18 and 55 years. Reconstructions were performed using 4 different femoral tunnel drilling technique: transtibial (TT), anteromedial portal with rigid (AMP-RR) or flexible (AMP-FR) reamer, and outside-in retrograde drilling (OI) techniques. Eighteen patients with intact native ACL were included as controls. Sagittal and coronal graft inclination angles were measured by magnetic resonance imaging 6 months after the procedure by 1 radiologist blinded in regards to the used technique.

RESULTS

OI and AMP-FR techniques allowed for the maintenance of native-like ACL inclination in both the sagittal and coronal planes, whereas TT and AMP-RR increased the sagittal angle by a mean of 9.5° (P < .001) and 6.7° (P = .003), respectively, compared with native ACLs. AMP-RR and TT also showed increased sagittal graft inclination compared with AMP-FR (+6.1°, P = .009 and +9.0°, P < .001, respectively) and OI-drilling techniques (+5.5°, P = .024 and +8.4°, P < .001, respectively). No differences were observed among study groups in terms of coronal graft inclination.

CONCLUSIONS

The study hypothesis was partially confirmed, since OI and AMP-FR techniques, but not AMP-RR, using an independent portal for femoral drilling produce a more anatomic graft inclination on the sagittal plane with respect to TT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, prospective comparative study.

Editorial Commentary: Is It Time to Make a Change? Don't Throw Out the Old Rigid Anterior Cruciate Ligament Femoral Reamers Just Yet

Debate remains on which technique(s) of femoral tunnel drilling is most able to recreate an anatomic femoral footprint in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The most commonly used techniques are the transtibial, anteromedial rigid reamer (AM-RR), anteromedial flexible reamer (AM-FR), and outside-in. Technique is based solely on surgeon preference. Each technique carries its own risks, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages, and there remains no single "gold standard." The AM-RR, AM-FR, and outside-in methods are considered independent or "unconstrained" methods that allow more variability in recreating anatomic angles compared with the transtibial technique, which is "constrained" by the tibial tunnel. Historically, the AM-RR and AM-FR techniques have not been subdivided in the orthopaedic literature. Further study is needed to determine whether there is a significant difference between the 2 techniques with respect to anatomical, biomechanical, and clinical results.

A two-portal technique using a flexible reamer system is a safe and effective method for transportal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

A flexible reamer system (FRS) for transportal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been developed to overcome the technical challenges of a rigid reamer system. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of the two-portal technique using an FRS by evaluating femoral tunnel geometry.

METHODS

This study included 30 patients (mean age 30 ± 12.1) who underwent transportal single-bundle ACLR. Operations were performed with the two-portal technique using an FRS. Three-dimensional computed tomography was performed for all patients 2 days after the operation. The femoral tunnel position, femoral graft bending angle, femoral tunnel length, and posterior wall breakage were evaluated. These radiologic outcomes were compared to previous literature-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean distances (measured as a percentage) from the posterior wall and the intercondylar notch roof to the femoral tunnel center were 29.6 ± 5.5% and 20.1 ± 6.7%, respectively. The femoral graft bending angle (108.4° ± 6.9°) was similar to that associated with the traditional transportal technique using a rigid reamer system, but it was less acute than that associated with the three-portal technique using an FRS. The femoral tunnel length (32.8 ± 4.5 mm) was also similar to the results of the traditional transportal technique using a rigid reamer system, but it was shorter than that of three-portal technique using an FRS. The prevalence of posterior wall breakage was as low as the reported outcomes of the outside-in technique (2 cases, 6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The two-portal technique for transportal ACLR using an FRS can achieve comparable femoral graft bending angle and femoral tunnel length compared with the conventional three-portal technique using the rigid reamer system and had a low risk of posterior wall breakage. Therefore, the two-portal technique using the FRS can be considered a safe and effective method for transportal ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series; level of evidence, 4.

Anatomic Tunnel Placement in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

The anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction concept has developed in part from renewed interest in the insertional anatomy of the ACL, using surgical techniques that can reproduce this anatomy reliably and accurately during surgical reconstruction. Several technical tools are available to help identify and place the tibial and femoral grafts anatomically, including arthroscopic anatomic landmarks, a malleable ruler device, and intraoperative fluoroscopy. The changes in technique for anatomic tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction follow recent biomechanical and kinematic data that demonstrate improved time zero characteristics. A better re-creation of native ACL kinematics and biomechanics is achieved with independent femoral drilling techniques that re-create a central footprint single-bundle ACL reconstruction or double-bundle reconstruction. However, to date, limited short-term and long-term clinical outcome data have been reported that support using either of these techniques rather than a transtibial drilling technique. This lack of clear clinical advantage for femoral independent and/or double-bundle techniques may arise because of the potentially offsetting biologic incorporation challenges of these grafts when placed using these techniques or could result from modifications made in traditional endoscopic transtibial techniques that allow improved femoral and tibial footprint restoration.

Does flexible tunnel drilling affect the femoral tunnel angle measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?

PURPOSE

To quantify the mean difference in femoral tunnel angle (FTA) as measured on knee radiographs between rigid and flexible tunnel drilling after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients that underwent primary anatomic ACL reconstruction with a single femoral tunnel drilled with a flexible reamer were included in this study. The control group was comprised of 50 patients all of who underwent primary anatomic ACL reconstruction with a single femoral tunnel drilled with a rigid reamer. All femoral tunnels were drilled through a medial portal to ensure anatomic tunnel placement. The FTA was determined from post-operative anterior-to-posterior (AP) radiographs by two independent observers. A 5° difference between the two mean FTA was considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

The average FTA, when drilled with a rigid reamer, was 42.0° ± 7.2°. Drilling with a flexible reamer resulted in a mean FTA of 44.7° ± 7.0°. The mean difference of 2.7° was not statistically significant. The intraclass correlation coefficient for inter-tester reliability was 0.895.

CONCLUSIONS

The FTA can be reliably determined from post-operative AP radiographs and provides a useful and reproducible metric for characterizing femoral tunnel position after both rigid and flexible femoral tunnel drilling. This has implications for post-operative evaluation and preoperative treatment planning for ACL revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Flexible Reamer System: Technique and Pitfalls

Anatomic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has been shown to improve stability of the knee, particularly rotational stability, potentially leading to superior clinical outcomes and a shorter return to sport. Nonanatomic ACL reconstruction has been linked to graft failure and abnormal cartilage loading thought to contribute to progression of degenerative joint disease. Use of the far anteromedial portal (FAMP) to uncouple the tibial and femoral tunnels has led to improved reproduction of the femoral footprint and facilitates drilling of the femoral tunnel in an anatomic position. The use of the FAMP and straight reamer systems introduces its own set of potential complications, including short femoral tunnels and peroneal nerve injury. These potential complications have been addressed by drilling the femoral tunnel in a hyperflexed position, which can lead to difficulty with positioning the operative extremity, visualization, and identification of anatomic landmarks. The purpose of this case report was to review the advantages and technical aspects of using a flexible reamer system and the FAMP to achieve an anatomic ACL reconstruction while avoiding potential complications and pitfalls. Flexible reamer systems allow an additional way of uncoupling the tibial and femoral tunnels to clearly visualize and establish an anatomic starting point within the femoral footprint of the native ACL while avoiding the complications associated with knee hyperflexion and straight reamers with the far anteromedial portal. In the authors’ experience, an anatomic reconstruction of the ACL can be achieved safely using flexible reamers while avoiding some of the difficulties seen with straight reamers used in conjunction with an uncoupled, far anteromedial approach.

Pitfalls in Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with the Flexible Reamer System: A Report of Two Cases and Review of the Literature

CASE

We present two cases of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with use of the flexible reamer system. In both patients, the starting reamers were broken during femoral reaming. The location of the breaks was approximately 60 mm from the tip of the reamer, which is the transitional zone between the proximal and distal portions of the reamer.

CONCLUSION

We believe that several conditions could have resulted in abnormal stress concentration on the flexible reamers, including engagement of the flexible reamer with a physeal scar or the posterior cortex, an inappropriate flexion angle of the knee, and acute bending of the flexible pin.