Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction: a surgical technique that may influence rehabilitation

An Anatomically Placed Tibial Tunnel does not Completely Surround a Simulated PCL Reconstruction Graft in the Proximal Tibia

INTRODUCTION

 It is hypothesized that anatomic tunnel placement will create tunnels with violation of the posterior cortex and subsequently an oblique aperture that is not circumferentially surrounded by bone. In this article, we aimed to characterize posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial tunnel using a three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) model.

METHODS

 Ten normal knee CTs with the patella, femur, and fibula removed were used. Simulated 11 mm PCL tibial tunnels were created at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees. The morphology of the posterior proximal tibial exit was examined with 3D modeling software. The length of tunnel not circumferentially covered (cortex violation) was measured to where the tibial tunnel became circumferential. The surface area and volume of the cylinder both in contact with the tibial bone and that not in contact with the tibia were determined. The percentages of the stick-out length surface area and volume not in contact with bone were calculated.

RESULTS

 The mean stick-out length of uncovered graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 26.3, 20.5, 17.3, and 12.7 mm, respectively. The mean volume of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 840.8, 596.2, 425.6, and 302.9 mm³, respectively. The mean percent of volume of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 32, 29, 25, and 24%, respectively. The mean surface of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 372.2, 280.4, 208.8, and 153.3 mm², respectively. The mean percent of surface area of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 40, 39, 34, and 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

 Anatomic tibial tunnel creation using standard transtibial PCL reconstruction techniques consistently risks posterior tibial cortex violation and creation of an oblique aperture posteriorly. This risk is decreased with decreasing the angle of the tibial tunnel, though the posterior cortex is still compromised with angles as low as 40 degrees. With posterior cortex violation, a surgeon should be aware that a graft within the tunnel or socket posteriorly may not be fully in contact with bone. This is especially relevant with inlay and socket techniques.

Posterolateral portal tibial tunnel drilling for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: technique and evaluation of safety and tunnel position

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety for neurovascular structures and accuracy for tunnel placement of the posterolateral portal tibial tunnel drilling technique in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Fifteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees were used. The tibial tunnel for the PCL was created using a flexible reamer from the posterolateral portal. Then, the flexible pin was left in place, and the distance from the posterolateral portal, the flexible pin, and the tibial tunnel to the peroneal nerve and popliteal artery was measured. Additionally, the distance between the tibial tunnel and several landmarks related to the PCL footprint was measured, along with the distance from the exit point of the flexible pin to the superficial medial collateral ligament and gracilis tendon.

RESULTS

The peroneal nerve and the popliteal neurovascular bundle were not damaged in any of the specimens. The median (range) distance in mm from the peroneal nerve and popliteal artery to the posterolateral portal and flexible pin was: 52 (40-80) and 50 (40-61), and 35 (26-51) and 22 (16-32), respectively. The median (range) distance from the tibial tunnel to the popliteal artery was 21 mm (15-38). The tibial tunnel was located at a median (range) distance in mm of 3 (2-6), 6 (3-12), 5 (2-7), 4 (1-8), 9 (3-10), 10 (4-19), and 19 (6-24) to the champagne-glass drop-off, lateral cartilage point, shiny white fibre point, medial groove, medial meniscus posterior root, lateral meniscus posterior root, and posterior aspect of the anterior cruciate ligament, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The posterolateral portal tibial tunnel technique is safe relative to neurovascular structures and creates an anatomically appropriate tibial tunnel location. The clinical relevance of study is that this technique may be safely and accurately used in PCL reconstruction to decrease the risk of neurovascular damage (avoid use of a posteriorly directed pin), avoid the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy, and avoid the sharp turn during graft passage.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Quadriceps Versus Achilles Tendon Bone Block Allograft

BACKGROUND

Long-term studies of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction suggest that normal stability is not restored in the majority of patients. The Achilles tendon allograft is frequently utilized, although recently, the quadriceps tendon has been introduced as an alternative option due to its size and high patellar bone density.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength of PCL reconstructions using a quadriceps versus an Achilles allograft. The hypothesis was that quadriceps bone block allograft has comparable mechanical properties to those of Achilles bone block allograft.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Twenty-nine fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (1) intact PCL, (2) PCL reconstruction with Achilles tendon allograft, or (3) PCL reconstruction with quadriceps tendon allograft. After reconstruction, all supporting capsular and ligamentous tissues were removed. Posterior tibial translation was measured at neutral and 20° external rotation. Each specimen underwent a preload, 2 cyclic loading protocols of 500 cycles, then load to failure.

RESULTS

Construct creep deformation was significantly lower in the intact group compared with both Achilles and quadriceps allograft (P = .008). The intact specimens reached the greatest ultimate load compared with both reconstructions (1974 ± 752 N, P = .0001). The difference in ultimate load for quadriceps versus Achilles allograft was significant (P = .048), with the quadriceps group having greater maximum force during failure testing. No significant differences were noted between quadriceps versus Achilles allograft for differences in crosshead excursion during cyclic testing (peak-valley [P-V] extension stretch), creep deformation, or stiffness. Construct stiffness measured during the failure test was greatest in the intact group (117 ± 9 N/mm, P = .0001) compared with the Achilles (43 ± 11 N/mm) and quadriceps (43 ± 7 N/mm) groups.

CONCLUSION

While the quadriceps trended to be a stronger construct with a greater maximum load and stiffness required during load to failure, only maximum force in comparison with the Achilles reached statistical significance. Quadriceps and Achilles tendon allografts had similar other biomechanical characteristics when used for a PCL reconstruction, but both were inferior to the native PCL.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The quadriceps tendon is a viable graft option in PCL reconstruction as it exhibits a greater maximum force and is otherwise comparable to the Achilles allograft. These findings expand allograft availability in PCL reconstruction.

Optimal femoral tunnel positioning in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using outside-in drilling

PURPOSE

The goal of our study was to determine the precise femoral drill guide placement during reconstruction of the anterolateral bundle (ALB) of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) femoral footprint that would produce a minimum tunnel length of 25 mm, a maximum graft/femoral tunnel angle of 50°, and a minimum distance of 10 mm between the femoral socket and the subchondral bone of the weight-bearing surface of the medial femoral condyle.

METHODS

Using computer navigation, we used synthetic replicas of human femora to create a series of virtual femoral sockets. We then measured the bone tunnel length, angle of the femoral socket relative to the PCL footprint, and distance from the subchondral bone of the weight-bearing surface of the medial femoral condyle to the femoral socket at a series of guide pin sleeve positions. We positioned the guide pin using the following angle combinations: -20°, -10°, 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 50°, and 60° to a line perpendicular to the femoral axis in the coronal plane and -15°, 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, and 60° to a line parallel to the transepicondylar axis in the axial plane. Using linear regression models, we determined the precise drill guide placement angles that would produce the optimal tunnel length, graft/femoral tunnel angle, and distance to the subchondral bone margin.

RESULTS

The results were consistent between small, medium, and large femora. We found that the optimal drilling angles for anatomic reconstruction of the femoral footprint of the ALB of the PCL were 0° to a line perpendicular to the femoral axis in the coronal plane and 15° to a line parallel to the transepicondylar axis in the horizontal or axial plane.

CONCLUSIONS

During outside-in drilling for PCL reconstruction, holding the guide pin sleeve at a position 0° to a line perpendicular to the femoral axis in the coronal plane and 15° to a line parallel to the transepicondylar axis in the horizontal or axial plane results in optimal bone tunnel length, graft/tunnel angle, and distance between the femoral socket and the subchondral bone of the weight-bearing surface of the medial femoral condyle.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We describe a precise femoral tunnel drill guide placement during outside-in PCL reconstruction that ensures an optimal femoral socket with a minimum bone tunnel length of 25 mm, maximum graft/femoral tunnel angle of 50°, and minimum distance of 10 mm between the subchondral bone of the weight-bearing surface of the medial femoral condyle and the femoral socket.