Femoral Tunnel Positioning in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Anteromedial Portal versus Transtibial Technique-A Randomized Clinical Trial

Transtibial versus anteromedial transportal femoral tunnel in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the comparative clinical and functional outcomes, postoperative complications, and radiological outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) performed using the transtibial (TT) approach or anteromedial (AM) technique. A systematic review of the literature was performed according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. RCTs comparing TT and AM techniques were considered only. The quality of the studies was defined using the GRADE system, and the risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2 tool. The primary endpoint was to systematically review and meta-analyze the clinical outcomes, residual laxity and failure rate of both AM and TT techniques. In the current meta-analysis 13 RCTs involving 989 patients who underwent arthroscopic single-bundle ACLR (486 TT and 503 AM) were included. Patients undergoing AM technique resulted in higher objective-IKDC (p < 0.001) and Lysholm scores (p = 0.002), despite a lower incidence of pathological anterior tibial translation (p < 0.001) and positive pivot-shift test (p < 0.001). No differences were detected in IKDC subjective score (p = 0.26), Tegner activity scale (p = 0.18) and graft failure (p = 0.07). ACL reconstruction through AM portal technique provides better clinical outcomes and lower incidence of residual rotational and anteroposterior laxity in comparison with the TT technique. No statistically significant difference in subjective outcomes and graft failure was reported.

Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Freddie Fu's paradigm

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques have evolved over the past four decades. There is evidence that non-anatomic reconstruction techniques, such as traditional transtibial drilling, fail to recreate the native anatomy of the ACL, which can lead to increased rotatory knee instability, revision risk, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Anatomic ACL reconstruction has emerged as the gold standard, with the goal of restoring the patient's native anatomy and knee kinematics. This review will summarise the relevant anatomy, modern anatomic ACL reconstruction techniques, and literature supporting anatomic ACL reconstruction as the new paradigm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, review article.

Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Portal Technique for Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Primary Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Level 1 and 2 Evidence of Clinical, Revision, and Radiological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although numerous clinical studies have compared transtibial (TT) and anteromedial portal (AMP) drilling of femoral tunnels during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), there is no high-quality, evidence-based consensus regarding which technique affords the best outcome.

HYPOTHESIS

There would be no difference between the TT and AMP techniques in terms of knee stability, patient-reported outcomes, incidence of revision, and radiological results.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to February 1, 2021. Level 1 and 2 clinical trials that compared TT and AM techniques were included. Data were meta-analyzed for the outcome measures of knee stability, patient-reported functional outcomes, incidence of revision, and radiological results. Dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratios (ORs), and continuous variables were presented as mean differences (MDs) and standard mean differences (SMDs).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 18 clinical studies, level of evidence 1 or 2, that involved 53,888 patients. Pooled data showed that the AMP group had a lower side-to-side difference (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.39; P = .009), a lower incidence of pivot-shift phenomenon (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.26 to 10.79; P = .02), and a higher postoperative Lysholm score (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.08; P = .005) than the TT group. However, no statistically significant differences were seen in other outcomes, including subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores (SMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.09; P = .30) or grades (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.35 to 2.49; P = .89), postoperative activity level (MD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.15; P = .35), and incidence of revision ACLR (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .45). The TT technique was more likely to create longer (SMD, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.05 to 2.06; P = .04) and more oblique (SMD, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.11; P < .001) femoral tunnels than the AMP technique, and a higher height ratio of the aperture position was detected with the TT technique (SMD, -3.51; 95% CI, -5.54 to -1.49; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The AMP technique for ACLR may be more likely to produce better knee stability and improved clinical outcomes than the TT technique, but no difference was found in the incidence of revision between the 2 groups.

Six Percent Incidence of Graft-Tunnel Mismatch in Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone-Patella Tendon-Bone Autograft and Anteromedial Portal Drilling

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of graft-tunnel mismatch (GTM) when performing anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using bone-patella tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts and anteromedial portal drilling.

Methods

Beginning in November 2018, 100 consecutive patients who underwent ACLR by two sports fellowship-trained, orthopedic surgeons using BPTB autograft and anteromedial portal drilling were prospectively identified. The BPTB graft dimensions and the femoral tunnel distance, tibial tunnel distance, intra-articular distance, and total distance were measured. Surgeons determined the depth and angle of tunnels based on the patella tendon graft length dimensions in each case. After passage of the graft, the distance from the distal graft tip to the tibial cortex aperture was measured. GTM was defined as the need for additional measures to obtain satisfactory tibial graft fixation (<15–20 mm of bone fixation).

Results

The incidence of mismatch was 6/100 (6%). Five cases involved the graft being too long, with the tibial bone plug protruding excessively from the tibial tunnel—4/5 had a patella tendon length ≥ 50 mm. Three cases were managed with femoral tunnel recession, and two were treated with a free bone plug technique. One patient with a patella tendon length of 35 mm had a graft that was too short, with the tibial bone plug recessed in the tibial tunnel. Of patients whose tibial tunnel distance was within 5 mm of the patella tendon length, only 1/46 (2%) patients had mismatch, whereas 5/54 (9%) of patients who had >5 mm difference had mismatch.

Conclusions

The incidence of graft-tunnel mismatch after anatomic ACLR using BTPB and anteromedial portal drilling in this study is 6%. To limit the occurrence of GTM where the graft is too long, surgeons should drill tibial tunnel distances within 5 mm of the patella tendon length.

Clinical Relevance

The results of this study provide surgeons with a technique of limiting graft tunnel mismatch when performing ACLR using BPTB and anteromedial portal drilling.

Transtibial versus independent femoral tunnel drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evaluation of femoral aperture positioning

Background

Femoral tunnel can be drilled through tibial tunnel (TT), or independent of it (TI) by out-in (OI) technique or by anteromedial (AM) technique. No consensus has been reached on which technique achieves more proper femoral aperture position because there have been evolving concepts in the ideal place for femoral aperture placement. This meta-analysis was performed to analyze the current literature comparing femoral aperture placement by TI versus TT techniques in ACL reconstruction.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language literature in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for articles comparing femoral aperture placement by TI versus TT techniques with aperture position assessed by direct measurement or by postoperative imaging, PXR and/or CT and/or MRI.

Results

We included 55 articles with study population of 2401 knees of whom 1252 underwent TI and 1149 underwent TT techniques. The relevant baseline characteristics, whenever compared, were comparable between both groups. There was nonsignificant difference between TI and TT techniques in the distance from aperture center to footprint center and both techniques were unable to accurately recreate the anatomic footprint position. TI technique significantly placed aperture at more posterior position than TT technique. TI technique significantly lowered position of placed aperture perpendicular to Blumensaat’s line (BL) than TT technique, and modifications to TT technique had significant effect on this intervention effect. Regarding sagittal plane aperture placement along both AP anatomical axis and BL, there was nonsignificant difference between both techniques.

Conclusion

Modifications to TT technique could overcome limitations in aperture placement perpendicular to BL. The more anterior placement of femoral aperture by TT technique might be considered, to some extent, a proper position according to recent concept of functional anatomical ACL reconstruction.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03040-5.

Higher Incidence of Radiographic Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis With Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Positioning Compared With Anteromedial Femoral Tunnel Positioning During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anteromedial (AM) femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been reported by some authors to yield superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with the transtibial (TT) approach; however, differences in the subsequent rates of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) are not clear.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the influence of femoral tunnel positioning during primary ACLR on the development of radiographic PTOA.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-2019), and MEDLINE (1980-2019) were queried for all studies describing the development of PTOA after TT or AM ACLR. Data pertaining to patient demographics, ACLR technique, and radiographic PTOA were extracted. A meta-analysis utilizing the DerSimonian-Laird method for random effects was used to compare the weighted proportion of PTOA after ACLR between the TT and AM approaches.

RESULTS

There were 16 studies identified for inclusion with a total of 1546 patients. The mean follow-up across all studies was 10.9 years (range, 5.4-17.8 years). The mean follow-up in the AM and TT groups was 10.8 years (range, 5.4-17 years) and 11.4 years (range, 6-17.8 years), respectively. A total of 783 (50.6%) patients underwent TT ACLR. Of these patients, 401 (weighted mean, 49.3%) developed radiographic PTOA. A total of 763 (49.4%) patients underwent AM ACLR. Of these patients, 166 (mean, 21.8%) went on to develop radiographic PTOA. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly greater rate of PTOA after ACLR using a TT technique compared with an AM technique overall (49.3% vs 25.4%, respectively; P < .001) and when studies were stratified by 5- to 10-year (53.7% vs 14.2%, respectively; P < .001) and greater than 10-year (45.6% vs 31.2%, respectively; P < .0001) follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TT ACLR was associated with higher overall rates of radiographic PTOA compared with the AM ACLR approach. The rates of radiographic PTOA after ACLR with a TT approach were also significantly higher than using an AM approach when stratified by length of follow-up (5- to 10-year and >10-year follow-up).

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Standard Techniques Are Comparable (299 Trials With 25,816 Patients)

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) summarizing the available evidence.

METHODS

Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Cochrane FIGCentral Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase for RCTs of ACLR from their inception to August 26, 2020. Outcome measure was whether RCTs reported statistically significant findings. RCTs were then classified according to their intervention groups in a narrative synthesis of the evidence.

RESULTS

In total, 299 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included with a total number of 25,186 patients. Only 30 RCTs (10%) reported significant differences between the intervention and the control groups. These included 101 RCTs on grafts, 20 RCTs on tunnel placements, 48 RCTs on graft fixation, 42 RCTs on single-bundle compared with double-bundle reconstructions, 11 RCTs on additional procedures, 11 RCTs on graft tensioning, 5 RCTs on timing of surgery, 25 RCTs on technical variations from standard techniques, 6 RCTs on ACL repair, 5 RCTs on navigation, 16 RCTs on perioperative management, and 9 RCTs on other aspects of ACLR. Only 14 RCTs (4.7%) reported outcomes beyond 10 years with greater allograft failures compared with autografts, high incidence of osteoarthritic changes in reconstructed knees (22%-100%), with no significant differences in outcomes between bioabsorbable or metal screws for graft fixation, patellar versus hamstrings or single- versus double-bundle reconstructions.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates that a standard arthroscopic single- or double-bundle ACLR with hamstrings/patella autografts, transportal technique, and fixation techniques familiar to the surgeon leads to comparable results. This evidence offers surgeons the flexibility to use standard and cost-effective techniques and achieve comparable outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II; systematic review of Level I-II randomized controlled trials.

Independent Versus Transtibial Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Background:

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed with different techniques for independent and transtibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnels, but there is still no consensus on which approach leads to the best outcome.

Purpose:

To assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted on July 1, 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The influence of different femoral drilling techniques was analyzed through a meta-analysis in terms of patient-reported outcome measure scores, risk of complications, range of motion limitations, graft failure, and differential laxity. Subanalyses were performed to compare the different independent drilling techniques considered. Linear metaregression was performed to evaluate if the year of study publication influenced the results. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines.

Results:

A total of 22 randomized controlled trials including 1658 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm score were higher with the independent drilling approach (mean difference [MD], 1.24 [P = .02] and 0.55 [P = .005], respectively). No difference was documented in terms of the risk of reinjury, but independent drilling led to reduced KT-1000 arthrometer–assessed anterior tibial translation (MD, 0.23; P = .01) and a higher probability of a negative postoperative pivot-shift test finding (risk ratio, 1.13; P = .04). There were no significant differences in IKDC objective or Tegner scores. A P value of .07 was found for the association between the year of the study and IKDC objective scores.

Conclusion:

Independent femoral tunnel drilling provided better results than the TT approach, although the difference was not clinically significant. No difference was observed in the risk of reinjury. Increasingly better results were seen among surgical procedures performed in more recent years. Among the independent drilling options, the anteromedial portal technique seemed to provide the most favorable outcomes. The lack of clinically significant differences and the promising outcomes reported with new modified TT techniques suggest the importance of correct placement, rather than the tunnel drilling approach, to optimize the results of ACL reconstruction.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background:

The drilling technique used to make a femoral tunnel is critically important for determining outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The 2 most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques.

Purpose:

To determine whether graft orientation and placement affect clinical outcomes by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes after single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the AM versus TT technique.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched from inception until April 25, 2020, using the following Boolean operators: transtibial OR trans-tibial AND (anteromedial OR trans-portal OR independent OR three portal OR accessory portal) AND anterior cruciate ligament.

Results:

Of 1270 studies retrieved, 39 studies involving 11,207 patients were included. Of these studies, 14 were clinical, 13 were radiological, and 12 were mixed. Results suggested that compared with the TT technique, the AM technique led to significantly improved anteroposterior and rotational knee stability, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and recovery time from surgery. A higher proportion of negative Lachman (P = .0005) and pivot-shift test (P = .0001) results, lower KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual displacement (P = .00001), higher Lysholm score (P = .001), a higher incidence of IKDC grade A/B (P = .05), and better visual analog scale score for satisfaction (P = .00001) were observed with the AM technique compared with the TT technique. The AM drilling technique demonstrated a significantly shorter tunnel length (P = .00001). Significant differences were seen between the femoral and tibial graft angles in both techniques. Low overall complication and revision rates were observed for ACL reconstruction with the AM drilling technique, similar to the TT drilling technique.

Conclusion:

In single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the AM drilling technique was superior to the TT drilling technique based on physical examination, scoring systems, and radiographic results. The AM portal technique provided a more reproducible anatomic graft placement compared with the TT technique.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study compared clinical outcomes obtained after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) techniques, which comprise the conventional transtibial (cTT) and modified transtibial (mTT) techniques. This study included clinical randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective controlled trials with AM and TT techniques from the PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2020. Two independent evaluators verified the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcome measures analysed included the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, side-to-side difference (SSD), Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade and score. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 prospective and retrospective controlled trials were included with a total of 2202 patients. There were 1180 patients and 1022 patients in the AM and TT groups, respectively. Compared to the cTT group, superior postoperative results were observed in the AM group based on the negative rate of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, IKDC grade and score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and SSD (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the AM and mTT groups (p > 0.05). Compared to the conventional TT technique, the AM technique exhibited superior clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the modified TT and AM techniques had comparable results. With neither of the techniques (mTT or AM) producing significantly superior outcomes, surgeons can choose either of them depending on their preferences.

The sagittal cutting plane affects evaluation of the femoral bone tunnel position on three-dimensional computed tomography after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

To investigate how the femoral sagittal cutting plane affects evaluation of the bone tunnel position after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the quadrant method in three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) imaging.

METHODS

Thirty patients who underwent primary anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction and CT 2 weeks after surgery were enrolled. Three sagittal cutting planes with respect to the condylar axis were created using the CT images: at the top of the intercondylar notch (C-plane), 5% medial (M-plane), and 5% lateral (L-plane). The center of the bone tunnel position regarding depth and height of the anteromedial (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB) were quantitatively evaluated using the quadrant method on the three different planes.

RESULTS

The mean depths of AMB and PLB were 27.4 ± 4.4% and 39.7 ± 5.1%, 27.0 ± 4.2% and 37.6 ± 4.9%, and 27.4 ± 4.5% and 38.5 ± 6.0%, at the M, C and L planes, respectively. The mean heights of AMB and PLB were 30.8 ± 6.3% and 56.2 ± 5.6%, 30.4 ± 6.2% and 56.6 ± 5.6%, and 25.4 ± 7.0% and 52.9 ± 6.9% at the M, C, and L planes, respectively. Both AMB and PLB bone tunnels were evaluated as higher positions in the L-plane than the C-plane (p < 0.01, p = 0.02, respectively) and M-plane (p < 0.01, p = 0.04, respectively), but there were no significant differences between the C-plane and M-plane (n.s.). There was no significant difference in the anteroposterior direction for all planes.

CONCLUSION

In evaluations of the bone tunnel position with the quadrant method using three-dimensional CT, the bone tunnel position depends on the femoral sagittal cutting plane. A consistent evaluation method should be used when evaluating the bone tunnel position after ACL reconstruction to enable correct evaluation clinically.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study, Level III.

[Progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction]

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and provide a clinical reference for treatment of ACL rupture.

METHODS

The literature about the femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction was widely reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages and the clinical results of each method were summarized.

RESULTS

Currently in ACL reconstruction, methods for femoral tunnel positioning include transtibial technique (TT), anteromedial technique (AM), outside-in (OI), modified TT (mTT), and computer assisted surgery. There is no significant difference in the postoperative effectiveness between TT technique and AM technique. Compared with the TT technique, the OI technique has higher rotational stability of knee, but there is no significant difference in clinical results. The femoral tunnel located by mTT technique is closer to the anatomical placement than that of TT technique, but mTT technique is not effective for systematically anatomic femoral tunnel positioning, and further research is needed to prove its advantages.

CONCLUSION

Different femoral tunnel positioning methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and there is no definite evidence that one is superior than the rest.

Preferences in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport: A survey among surgeons in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the preferences of surgeons on technique for femoral tunnel placement, graft selection and criteria for return to sport in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A web-based survey among the Dutch Association of Arthroscopy was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 125 members (24.0%) were included in the analysis. A total of 87.2% (n = 109) used hamstring autografts for primary ACL reconstruction followed by patellar tendon autograft (n = 11, 8.8%) and quadriceps tendon autograft (n = 5, 4.0%). The anteromedial technique was favored by 50.4% (n = 63), whereas 11.2% (n = 14) of the participants favored the transtibial technique. Return to sport after 9 months of primary ACL reconstruction was allowed by 75.2% (n = 94) of the participants. Regarding criteria to evaluate readiness to return to sport, the surgeons stated postoperative period (n = 107, 85.6%) and functional performance tests (n = 96, 76.8%) as important.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the participants of the Dutch Association of Arthroscopy favored the hamstring autografts for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Furthermore, most participants stated postoperative time and functional performance tests as important criteria to evaluate readiness to return to sport. This is the first survey demonstrating a high preference of surgeons to use functional performance tests in the decision-making of readiness to return to sport.

ACL Reconstruction Graft Angle and Outcomes: Transtibial vs Anteromedial Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The importance of creating an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been receiving significant attention. The best technique by which to achieve this anatomic reconstruction continues to be debated. The two most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and the literature comparing the two remains uncertain.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this prospective comparative study, we aimed to compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles achieved using the anatomic transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques; compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles in knees that have undergone ACL reconstruction and knees with intact ACLs; and determine whether differences in the graft or tunnel angle produce differences in clinical outcomes, as measured using both physical exam and patient-reported outcomes, after ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone grafts using a TT or AM technique were included. Femoral graft angle (FGA), tibial graft angle (TGA), and sagittal orientation of the reconstructed ACL and contralateral native ACL were measured on post-operative magnetic resonance imaging. Post-operatively, patients underwent measurement of knee stability and completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) survey.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were enrolled (AM group, 14; TT group, 15); at follow-up, KOOS data were available for 26 patients (13 in each group). There were no differences in sagittal ACL graft angle between groups or in comparison with the normal knee. The FGA was more vertical after TT reconstructions; the TGA was comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in 2-year post-operative physical exam measurements or in KOOS scores.

CONCLUSION

Anatomic ACL angle was restored after reconstruction with both the TT and AM techniques, despite different FGAs. No significant differences in clinical outcome were noted between groups on physical exam or KOOS at 2 years after surgery. These results suggest that TT reconstruction results in a graft position similar to that seen in AM reconstruction and that the location of the intra-articular tunnel aperture matters more than the orientation of the tunnel.

Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

This study compared the clinical and radiological findings of nonanatomic transtibial (TT) technique with intraspongious fixation and anatomical anteromedial portal (AMP) technique with extracortical button implant in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. A total of 54 patients with isolated ACL rupture were included in this prospective study. The patients who had the intraspongious fixation by nonanatomical TT technique were allocated to Group 1 (n = 27). The patients with extracortical fixation by anatomical AMP technique were placed in Group 2 (n = 27). The clinical scores of the patients were evaluated with the International Knee Documentation Committee Evaluation Form, Tegner activity score, and Lysholm II Functional Scoring. The tibial and femoral tunnels were evaluated with three-dimensional computed tomography. The kinematic examinations were performed with a Biodex System 3 Pro isokinetic dynamometer. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic data (p > 0.05). The postoperative clinical scores improved significantly in both the groups compared with the preoperative levels (p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference in the postoperative clinical scores between the groups (p > 0.05). In the extension and flexion of 60 to 180 degrees/s, the peak torque and the peak torque/body weight values of the repaired knee to intact knee ratios showed significant differences in favor of Group 2 (p = 0.001). In both the groups, no significant difference was found between the mean extent of the tunnel enlargement (p > 0.05). The mean tunnel height was significantly greater in Group 1 (45% ± 9.86 vs. 34.11% ± 10.0%) (p = 0.001). When the localization of the tunnel enlargements (proximal-middle-distal) was examined, a significant difference was found between the groups (p = 0.001). Although the AMP technique, which is a more anatomic reconstruction, had an advantage with regard to tunnel enlargement and the isokinetic muscle studies, there was no difference between the two techniques in terms of the clinical results.

Femoral offset guide facilitates accurate and precise femoral tunnel placement for single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and precision of femoral tunnel placement by expert and novice surgeons using an offset guide for single-bundle ACL reconstruction via the anteromedial (AM) portal.

METHODS

Twenty-five single-bundle ACL reconstructions performed by a novice surgeon were matched with 25 ACL reconstructions performed by an expert surgeon, based on one-to-one propensity score matching. The same technique was used by both groups for femoral tunnel placement using a 7-mm offset guide through the AM portal. Using the Bernard and Hertel grid method for postoperative three-dimensional reconstructed computed tomography, the accuracy and precision of various tunnel positions were compared.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the proximal-distal and anterior-posterior femoral tunnel placements by the two groups (proximal-distal; 30.5% involving experts, and 32.5% by novices, n.s) (anterior-posterior; 32.6% involving experts, and 31.6% by novice, n.s). The accuracy of the femoral tunnel positions, based on the average distance from the tunnel center to the center of ACL direct insertion, was similar between the two groups (n.s). No differences were found between the groups in terms of precision of femoral tunnel positions (n.s).

CONCLUSION

Novice surgeons can achieve accuracy and precision comparable to experts in creating femoral tunnels via single-bundle ACL reconstruction through the AM portal using a femoral offset guide. We recommend the use of a femoral offset guide for ACL reconstruction during the learning phase of a novice surgeon for effective tunnel placement to reduce the learning curve required to perform accurate and reproducible ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study, Level III.

Anteversion and length of the femoral tunnel in ACL reconstruction: in-vivo comparison between rigid and flexible instrumentation

Background

Due to it being tangential to the distal femoral axis, the anteromedial portal presents significant risk of causing iatrogenic damage, and of producing tunnels that are too short for optimal osseointegration. Flexible reamers were developed to eliminate the need for knee hyperflexion and offer better-controlled orientation of the femoral tunnel. We aimed to compare the anteversion and length of femoral tunnels drilled using flexible reamers to those drilled using rigid reamers.

Methods

Between May 2012 and December 2013, all patients receiving ACL reconstruction performed by one surgeon were operated on using either a rigid or a flexible reamer from the same supplier (Versi-Tomic® system, Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan). The height of each patient was recorded, and the length and anteversion of the femoral tunnels were measured intra-operatively and on true lateral radiographs, respectively.

Results

Thirty-seven patients underwent operations using the rigid instrumentation, and 43 using the flexible instrumentation. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either sex or height (p = n.s.). The patients operated on using the rigid instrumentation had tunnels anteverted by 18.6° ± 6° and 33.6 ± 2.9 mm long. Those operated on using the flexible instrumentation had tunnels anteverted by 40° ± 2° and 41.1 ± 3.57 mm long. Both anteversion and tunnel length were significantly greater for tunnels drilled using the flexible instrumentation (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that flexible reamers produce significantly more anteverted and longer femoral tunnels during ACL reconstruction than rigid reamers. Clinical studies remain necessary to assess the outcomes of ACL reconstruction using flexible reamers.

Computed Tomography Assessment of Anatomic Graft Placement After ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of Grid and Angle Measurements

Background:

The anatomic placement of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts is often assessed with postoperative imaging. In clinical practice, graft angles are measured to indicate anatomic placement on magnetic resonance imaging, whereas grid measurements are performed on computed tomography (CT). Recently, a study indicated that graft angle measurements could also be assessed on CT. No consensus has yet been reached on which measurement method is best suited to assess anatomic graft placement.

Purpose:

To compare the ability of grid measurements and angle measurements to identify anatomic versus nonanatomic tunnel placement on CT performed in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A total of 100 knees undergoing primary reconstruction with a hamstring graft (HAM group), 91 undergoing reconstruction with a bone–patellar tendon–bone graft (BPTB group), and 117 undergoing revision ACL reconstruction (REV group) were assessed with CT. Grid measurements of the femoral and tibial tunnels and angle measurements of grafts were performed. Graft placement, rated as anatomic or nonanatomic, was assessed with both methods. Pearson chi-square, analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and weighted kappa tests were performed as appropriate.

Results:

The grid assessment classified 10% of the HAM group, 4% of the BPTB group, and 17% of the REV group as nonanatomic (P < .001). The angle assessment classified 37% of the HAM group, 54% of the BPTB group, and 47% of the REV group as nonanatomic. The weighted kappa between angle measurements and grid measurements was low in all groups (HAM: 0.009; BPTB: 0.065; REV: 0.041).

Conclusion:

The agreement between grid measurements and angle measurements was very low. The angle measurements seemed to overestimate nonanatomic tunnel placement. Grid measurements were better in identifying malpositioned grafts.

Outcome of posterior wall blowout in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction via anteromedial portal approach: A retrospective research in 20 patients with 6 years follow-up

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcome in patients who received anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction via anteromedial portal with or without posterior wall blowout.

METHODS

Twenty patients with ruptured ACL, who have received ACL reconstruction via anteromedial portal between Apr 2012 and Oct 2013 were enrolled. According to the conditions of posterior wall, the patients were divided into 2 groups: posterior wall blowout group (10 patients) and posterior wall intact group (10 patients). The median follow up time were 63 (range 19-75) months and 60.5 (range 25-64) months in the 2 groups respectively. The clinical outcome was evaluated by knee joint physical examination, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) 2000 subjective score, Lysholm score, Tenger score, difference of thigh circumference, KT-2000 and Biodex isokinetic dynamometer system.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in terms of the IKDC score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, Lachman test positive rate or Pivot Shift test positive rate between the two groups. In KT-2000 and Biodex isokinetic dynamometer tests, the difference of muscle strength between affected knees and unaffected knees in posterior wall blowout group was not significant less than that of posterior wall intact group (p > 0.05). In addition, there is no statistical difference between the two groups in signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the graft (p > 0.05) in post operative MRI.

CONCLUSION

Blowout of posterior wall in ACL reconstruction via anteromedial portal does not affect the clinical outcome as long as reliable fixation is taken intraoperatively.

Drilling through anteromedial portal with a femoral aiming device ensures a sufficient length and a proper graft position, and prevents posterior wall breakage during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of the femoral tunnel (FT) which was drilled through the AM portal by using a femoral aimer device and AP stability of the knee.

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients, with the mean age 29.6 (range: 20-43) years, were evaluated after ACL reconstruction. The mean follow-up time was 31.9 (range: 16-57) months. The FT was drilled using a femoral aimer with different offset according to the graft size measured, through the AM portal. The semitendinous and gracilis tendon autograft was used for reconstruction. The angles of FT and the exit point on the lateral condyle were measured on AP views of the knee. AP stability of the knee was measured with the KT-2000.

RESULTS

The mean angle of FT was 46.5° (± 8.4°), on the AP view. The mean distance between the exit point of FT and the most distal end of the femoral condyles was 46.7 (± 4.9) mm. The mean FT length was 36.1 (± 3.1) mm. The mean difference of anterior translation compared to the intact knee was 1.9 (± 1.6) mm. Except the three patients, with "one positive" pivot shift test, in the remaining 35 knees stability was equal to the healthy knee.

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral drilling by using a femoral aimer device through AM portal provided long enough FT for safe graft fixation and appropriate coronal plan obliquity. The exit point was far proximal from the insertion site of the popliteus tendon and lateral collateral ligament. Furthermore, the AM portal technique significantly improved AP stability of the knee.