Condyle-Pinching Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Anterolateral Structure Reconstructions With Different Tibial Attachment Sites Similarly Improve Tibiofemoral Kinematics and Result in Different Graft Force in Treating Knee Anterolateral Instability

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical effects of anterolateral structure reconstructions (ALSRs) with different tibial attachments on tibiofemoral kinematics and anterolateral structure (ALS) graft forces.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric knees were tested in a customized knee testing system, using a novel pulley system to simulate more muscle tensions by loading the iliotibial band at 30 N and quadriceps at 10 N in all testing states. Anterior stability during anterior load and anterolateral rotatory stability during 2 simulated pivot-shift tests (PST1 and PST2) were evaluated in 5 states: intact, ALS-deficient (Def), ALSR-Ta (anterior tibial site), ALSR-Tm (middle tibial site), and ALSR-Tp (posterior tibial site). Tibiofemoral kinematics and resulting ALS graft forces against the applied loads were measured and compared in the corresponding states.

RESULTS

In anterior load, 3 ALSRs mitigated the anterior laxities of the ALS Def state at all degrees, which were close to intact state at 0° and 30° but showed significantly overconstraints at 60° and 90°. In both PSTs, all ALSRs significantly reduced the anterolateral rotatory instability of ALS Def, whereas the significant overconstraints were detected in ALSR-Ta and ALSR-Tm at greater knee flexion angles. All ALS grafts carried forces in resisting anterior and pivot-shift loads. Only ALS graft force in ALSR-Ta increased continuously with knee flexion angles. The ALS graft forces carried by ALSR-Ta were significantly larger than those by ALSR-Tp and ALSR-Tm when resisting anterior load and PSTs at greater knee flexion angles.

CONCLUSIONS

ALSRs with different tibial attachment sites similarly restored knee laxities close to the native tibiofemoral kinematics in an ALS-deficient knee, whereas the ALSR-Tp showed less propensity for overconstraining the knee at greater flexion angles. The ALS graft in ALSR-Ta carried more forces than those in ALSR-Tp and ALSR-Tm against simulated loads.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Altering the tibial attachment sites of ALSRs may not significantly affect tibiofemoral kinematics at most degrees whereas the posterior may have less overconstraints at greater flexion angles. However, ALS graft positioning at a more anterior tibial attachment site may carry more forces in resisting anterior and pivot-shift loads.

Augmentation of Anterolateral Structures of the Knee Causes Undesirable Tibiofemoral Cartilage Contact in Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction-A Randomized In-Vivo Biomechanics Study

PURPOSE

To analyze the in vivo tibiofemoral cartilage contact patterns in knees undergoing double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction(DB-ACLR) with or without anterolateral structure augmentation (ALSA).

METHODS

Twenty patients with an ACL-ruptured knee and a healthy contralateral side were included. Nine patients received an isolated DB-ACLR (DB-ACLR group), and 11 patients had a DB-ACLR with ALSA (DB+ALSA group). At 1-year follow-up, a combined computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and dual fluoroscopy imaging system analysis was used to capture a single-legged lunge of both the operated and healthy contralateral side. Tibiofemoral contact points (CPs) of the medial and lateral compartments were compared. CP locations were expressed as anteroposterior (AP, +/-) and medial-lateral (ML, -/+) values according to the tibia.

RESULTS

In the DB-ACLR knees, no significant differences were found in CPs when compared with the healthy contralateral knees (P ≥ .31). However, in the DB+ALSA knees, the CPs in the lateral compartment had a significantly more anterior (mean AP: operative, -2.8 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.0 to-0.7 vs healthy, -5.0 mm, 95% CI -6.7 to -3.2; P = .006) and lateral (mean ML: operative, 23.2 mm, 95% CI 21.9-24.5 vs healthy, 21.8 mm, 95% CI 20.2-23.3; P = .013) location. The CPs in the medial compartment were located significantly more posterior (mean AP: operative, -3.4, 95% CI -5.0 to -1.9 vs healthy, -1.3, 95% CI -2.6 to -0.1; P = .006) and lateral (mean ML: operative, -21.3, 95% CI -22.6 to -20.0 vs healthy, -22.6, 95% CI -24.2 to -21.0; P = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

DB-ACLR restored the tibiofemoral cartilage contact mechanics to near-normal values at 1-year follow-up. Adding the ALSA to the DB-ACLR resulted in significantly altered tibiofemoral cartilage contact locations in both the medial and lateral compartments.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In DB-ACLR knees, the addition of an ALSA may be unfavorable as it caused significantly changed arthrokinematics.

Anterolateral Structure Reconstruction Similarly Improves the Stability and Causes Less Overconstraint in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knees Compared With Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To compare the kinematics of anterolateral structure (ALS) reconstruction (ALSR) and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in ACL-ALS-deficient knees with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees with the following conditions were tested: (1) intact, (2) ACL-ALS deficiency, (3) ACL reconstruction (ACLR), (4) ACLR combined with ALSR (ACL-ALSR) or LET (ACLR+LET). Anterior translation and tibial internal rotation were measured with 90-N anterior load and 5 N·m internal torque at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°. The anterolateral translation and internal rotation were also measured during a simulated pivot-shift test at 0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°. The knee kinematic changes in all reconstructions were compared with each other, with intact knees as the baseline.

RESULTS

Isolated ACLR failed to restore native knee kinematics in ACL-ALS-deficient knees. Both ACL-ALSR and ACLR+LET procedures decreased the anterior instability of the ACLR. However, ACLR+LET caused overconstraints in internal rotation at 30° (-3.73° ± 2.60°, P = .023), 60° (-4.96° ± 2.22°, P = .001) and 90° (-6.14° ± 1.60°, P < .001). ACL-ALSR also overconstrained the knee at 60° (-3.65° ± 1.90°, P < .001) and 90° (-3.18° ± 2.53°, P < .001). For a simulated pivot-shift test, both combined procedures significantly reduced the ACLR instability, with anterolateral translation and internal rotation being overconstrained in ACLR+LET at 30° (-3.32 mm ± 3.89 mm, P = .005; -2.58° ± 1.61°, P < .001) and 45° (-3.02 mm ± 3.95 mm, P = .012; -3.44° ± 2.86°, P < .001). However, the ACL-ALSR overconstrained only the anterolateral translation at 30° (-1.51 mm ± 2.39 mm, P = .046) and internal rotation at 45° (-2.09° ± 1.70°, P < .001). There were no significant differences between the two combined procedures at most testing degrees in each testing state, except for the internal rotation at 30° (P = .007) and 90° (P = .032) in internal rotation torque.

CONCLUSION

ACL reconstruction alone did not restore intact knee kinematics in knees with concurrent ACL tears and severe ALS injury (ACL-ALS-deficient status). Both ACL-ALSR and ACLR+LET procedures restored knee stability at some flexion degrees, with less overconstraints in internal rotation resulting from ACL-ALSR.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For patients with combined ACL tears and severe ALS deficiency, isolated ACLR probably results in residual rotational and pivot-shift instability. Both ACL-ALSR and ACLR+LET show promise for the improvement of knee stability, whereas ACL-ALSR has less propensity for knee overconstraint.

Three-in-One Procedure for Revision ACL Reconstruction

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a challenge due to the unfavorable condition of the knee and the lack of autogenous graft tissue. Anterolateral structure (ALS) reconstruction of the knee has been proved effective to address the unfavorable condition in revision cases, and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) is a special technique that can enhance anterolateral stability of the knee without graft tissue. We introduce a procedure that combines ACL and ALS reconstruction, as well as LET for failed ACL reconstruction. The critical point of this technique is using the anterior half of the iliotibial band to realize LET and to partially reconstruct the ACL. Our clinical experience indicates this technique is extremely useful in revision ACL reconstruction without enough free graft tissue. This technique will provide a reasonable choice in revision ACL reconstruction.