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

Tibial Tunnel Placement in ACL Reconstruction Using a Novel Grid and Biplanar Stereoradiographic Imaging

Background:

Nonanatomic graft placement is a frequent cause of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure, and it can be attributed to either tibial or femoral tunnel malposition. To describe tibial tunnel placement in ACLR, we used EOS, a low-dose biplanar stereoradiographic imaging modality, to create a comprehensive grid that combines anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) coordinates.

Purpose:

To (1) validate the automated grid generated from EOS imaging and (2) compare the results with optimal tibial tunnel placement.

Study Design:

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods:

Using EOS, 3-dimensional models were created of the knees of 37 patients who had undergone ACLR. From the most medial, lateral, anterior, and posterior points on the tibial plateau of the EOS 3-dimensional model for each patient, an automated and personalized grid was generated from 2 independent observers’ series of reconstructions. To validate this grid, each observer also manually measured the ML and AP distances, the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and the tibial slope for each patient. The ideal tibial tunnel placement, as described in the literature, was compared with the actual tibial tunnel grid coordinates of each patient.

Results:

The automated grid metrics for observer 1 gave a mean (95% CI) AP depth of 54.7 mm (53.4-55.9), ML width of 75.0 mm (73.3-76.6), MPTA of 84.9° (83.7-86.0), and slope of 7.2° (5.4-9.0). The differences with corresponding manual measurements were means (95% CIs) of 2.4 mm (1.4-3.4 mm), 0.5 mm (–1.3 to 2.2 mm), 1.2° (–0.4° to 2.9°), and –0.4° (–2.1° to 1.2°), respectively. The correlation between automated and manual measurements was r = 0.78 for the AP depth, r = 0.68 for the ML width, r = 0.18 for the MPTA, and r = 0.44 for the slope. The center of the actual tibial aperture on the plateau was a mean of 5.5 mm (95% CI, 4.8-6.1 mm) away from the referenced anatomic position, with a tendency toward more medial placement.

Conclusion:

The automated grid created using biplanar stereoradiographic imaging provided a novel, precise, and reproducible description of the tibial tunnel placement in ACLR.

Clinical Relevance:

This technique can be used during preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, and postoperative evaluation of tibial tunnel placement in ACLR.

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.