Clinical and arthrometric outcomes of an anatomic outside-in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a retrodrill

Systematic Review of Surgical Technique and Tunnel Target Points and Placement in Anatomical Single-Bundle ACL Reconstruction

The purpose of this systematic review was to reveal the trend in surgical technique and tunnel targets points and placement in anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, data collection was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochran Review were searched using the terms "anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction," "anatomic or anatomical," and "single bundle." Studies were included when they reported clinical results, surgical technique, and/or tunnel placement evaluation. Laboratory studies, technical reports, case reports, and reviews were excluded from this study. From these full article reviews, graft selection, method of creating the femoral tunnel, and femoral and tibial tunnel target points and placement were evaluated. In the 79 studies included for data evaluation, the selected grafts were: bone patella tendon bone autograft (12%), and hamstring autograft (83%). The reported methods of creating the femoral tunnel were: transportal technique (54%), outside-in technique (15%), and transtibial technique (19%). In the 60 studies reporting tunnel target points, the target point was the center of the femoral footprint (60%), and the center of the anteromedial bundle footprint (22%). In the 23 studies evaluating tunnel placement, the femoral tunnel was placed in a shallow-deep direction (32.3%) and in a high-low direction (30.2%), and the tibial tunnel was placed from the anterior margin of the tibia (38.1%). The results of this systematic review revealed a trend in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction favoring a hamstring tendon with a transportal technique, and a tunnel target point mainly at the center of the ACL footprint. The level of evidence stated is Systematic review of level-III studies.

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.

Comparison of Modified Transtibial and Outside-In Techniques in Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE

To compare the bending angle of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft at femoral tunnel, graft maturation, and tunnel positions and the clinical outcomes of the modified transtibial (mTT) and outside-in (OI) techniques.

METHODS

Patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into the mTT group (n = 50) and the OI group (n = 50). Using 3-dimensional computed tomography (3-D CT), tunnel placement and femoral tunnel bending angle were analyzed. The 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to assess the graft signal intensity (indicative of maturation) with signal/noise quotient (SNQ). Graft tension and synovialization were evaluated with second-look arthroscopy in all cases. Clinical and functional tests were completed at 36 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

When tunnel placements were analyzed using the quadrant method, no significant differences were found between the mTT group and the OI group. The femoral graft bending angle was reduced in the mTT group, and the total mean of SNQ values and mean SNQ values at the femoral intraosseous and proximal graft of the mTT group were significantly lower than in the OI group (P < .001), respectively. The femoral graft bending angle on the coronal and axial planes showed moderate-to-strong correlation with the SNQ values at the femoral intraosseous and proximal graft. Second-look arthroscopy revealed better synovialization in the mTT group than in the OI group (P = .040), with no significant difference in graft tension between the 2 groups (P = .328).

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomic tunnel placements did not vary between the mTT group and the OI group. However, the mTT group had more benefits in femoral graft bending angle and showed higher graft maturity and better synovial coverage than the OI group, although there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes. The acute femoral graft bending angle might negatively affect the maturation of proximal graft. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is better than single-bundle reconstruction in terms of objective assessment but not in terms of subjective score

PURPOSE

A comparison of clinical outcomes between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction for patients with ACL injury.

METHODS

Sixty patients were treated with either SB (n = 30) or DB (n = 30) ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2012. The hamstring tendons were autografted with suspensory fixation on the femoral side, while a bio-absorbable interference screw was used for fixation on the tibial side. These patients were evaluated using Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) forms (both objective and subjective), Lachman test, pivot shift test, and KT 1000 arthrometer.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up duration of 35.5 months (ranging between 30 and 42 months), the frequency of patients who had high objective IKDC scores was significantly higher in the DB group than those in the SB group. In terms of DB, the Lachman test was normal in 26 patients (86.7%), nearly normal in three patients (10%), and abnormal in one patient (3.3%); comparatively, in terms of SB, the Lachman test was normal in 20 patients (66.7%), nearly normal in eight patients (26.7%) and abnormal in two patients (6.6%). The pivot shift test was negative in 29 patients (96.7%) and 21 patients (70%) for DB and SB, respectively. The average KT-1000 side-to-side difference was 1.0 mm for DB and 1.5 mm for SB. The subjective IKDC and Lysholm score showed non-significant differences between both techniques.

CONCLUSION

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction was found to have a significant advantage in anterior and rotational stability as well as objective IKDC than that of SB reconstruction. However, subjective measurements showed no statistical differences between the techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.