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

Flexible Versus Rigid Reaming Systems for Independent Femoral Tunnel Reaming During ACL Reconstruction: Minimum 2-Year Clinical Outcomes

Background:

Radiographic and cadaveric studies have suggested that anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) femoral tunnel drilling with the use of a flexible reaming system through an anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different graft and femoral tunnel position compared with using a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AAM-RR). No prior studies have directly compared clinical outcomes between the use of these 2 techniques for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR.

Purpose:

To compare revision rates at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively for patients who underwent ACLR with AM-FR versus AAM-RR. The secondary objectives were to compare functional testing and patient-reported outcomes between the cohorts.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Included were consecutive patients at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2018 who underwent primary ACLR without additional ligamentous reconstruction. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on the type of anatomic femoral tunnel drilling: AM-FR or AAM-RR. Graft failure, determined by revision ACLR, was assessed with a minimum 2 years of postoperative follow-up. The authors also compared patient-reported outcome scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]) and functional performance testing performed at 6 months postoperatively.

Results:

A total of 284 (AAM-RR, 232; AM-FR, 52) patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 3.7 ± 1.5 years, with a minimum 2-year follow-up rate of 90%. There was no significant difference in the rate of revision ACLR between the AAM-RR and AM-FR groups (10.8% vs 9.6%, respectively; P = .806). At 6 months postoperatively, there were no significant between-group differences in peak knee extension strength, peak knee flexion strength, limb symmetry indices, or hop testing, as well as no significant differences in IKDC (AAM-RR, 81.1; AM-FR, 78.9; P = .269) or KOOS (AAM-RR, 89.0; AM-FR, 86.7; P = .104).

Conclusion:

In this limited study, independent femoral tunnel drilling for ACLR using rigid or flexible reaming systems resulted in comparable rates of revision ACLR at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, with no significant differences in strength assessments or patient-reported outcomes at 6 months postoperatively.

A prospective randomized study of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with adjustable- versus fixed-loop device for femoral side fixation

Purpose

Suspensory devices are extensively used in the management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. They include fixed- and adjustable-loop devices. There are only a few studies comparing the efficacy of these two devices in the available literature. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare clinical outcomes between the adjustable-loop device (group I) and fixed-loop device (group II).

Materials and methods

This was a prospective randomized study. Both groups were equivalent in demographic, preoperative, and intraoperative variables. Twenty-three patients underwent femoral side graft fixation with adjustable-loop and 20 with fixed-loop devices. Four patients were lost to follow-up. Assessment of clinical outcome was done with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and knee stability tests (Lachman test and pivot shift test). Patient evaluation was performed preoperatively and finally postoperatively 2 years after surgery.

Results

Postoperative IKDC scores of group I and II were 91.9 ± 3.6 and 91.5 ± 3.6, respectively, and Lysholm scores were 91.0 ± 3.6 and 91.4 ± 3.5, respectively, after 2 years; however, the difference in the outcomes was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Twenty patients (87%) in group I and 17 patients (85%) in group II had a negative Lachman test (p = 0.8). Twenty-two patients (95.7%) in group I and 19 patients (95%) in group II had a negative pivot shift test (p = 0.9).

Conclusion

ACL reconstruction with fixed- and adjustable-loop suspensory devices for graft fixation gives equivalent and satisfactory clinical results.

Level of evidence

1.

Graft choice or drilling technique does not influence outcomes of ACL reconstruction in patients over forty-five

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether graft-type and tunnel location in ACL reconstruction impact patient-reported outcomes in individuals over the age of 45.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2018, patients over 45 years old undergoing primary ACL reconstruction without multi-ligamentous injuries were enrolled in an institutional registry. Baseline International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS), Marx Activity Scale, and patient characteristics were collected. Follow-up occurred at a minimum of two years to obtain patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 51 patients who qualified for the study, 44 (86.3%) patients were available at a minimum of two years after surgery date (range 24-60 months). Average age at time of surgery of the available patients was 51.6 ± 4.87 (range 45-66). Between femoral tunnel drilling methods, there were no differences in the proportion of patients achieving clinically significant improvement or post-operative outcome scores. While patients who received patellar tendon autografts were more likely to achieve clinically significant improvement in the KOOS sports subscale, there were no other differences in outcomes measures between graft types. Two patients had a retear of their graft, and an additional five patients complained of subjective instability.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients over the age of 45, neither the method used to create the femoral tunnel nor the graft type used in ACL reconstruction caused a significant difference in post-operative PROMs with a minimum of two years of follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV, Case Series.

Comparing the Use of Flexible and Rigid Reaming Systems Through an Anteromedial Portal for Femoral Tunnel Creation During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background

Recent studies have suggested that femoral tunnel drilling during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with the use of a flexible reaming system through a standard anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different tunnel geometry compared with a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AM-RR).

Purpose

To summarize radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes from available studies that directly compared the use of AM-FR versus AM-RR for independent femoral tunnel creation during ACLR.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Web of Science databases to identify all studies that directly compared radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes between the use of AM-FR and AM-RR. The literature search, data recording, and methodological quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The outcomes analyzed included resultant ACL graft positioning and graft bending angle; femoral tunnel positioning, aperture morphology, length, and widening; posterior wall breakage; and distance from various posterolateral knee structures.

Results

A total of 13 studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. There was no difference in femoral tunnel aperture location between techniques. There were conflicting findings among studies regarding which technique resulted in a more acute graft bending angle. One study reported greater femoral tunnel widening upon follow-up with the use of AM-FR. AM-FR produced longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than did AM-RR. The difference in tunnel length was significant and more prominent in lesser degrees of knee flexion. With AM-FR, femoral tunnels were farther from the lateral collateral ligament and peroneal nerve, and 1 of 5 studies had fewer reports of posterior wall breakage. There has been no literature comparing the clinical or functional outcomes of these techniques.

Conclusion

Although no clinical studies exist comparing AM-FR and AM-RR for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR, both systems allow for reproducible positioning of an anatomic femoral tunnel aperture. The use of AM-FR results in longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than using AM-RR, with exit points on the lateral femur that are different but safe. Surgeons should be aware of the technical differences with each method; however, further study is needed to identify any clinically important difference that results.

An Analysis of the Femoral Drilling Angle to Avoid Tunnel Collision during Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction on the Knee

Concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction has been reported as an effective technique for providing rotational control of the knee. However, the intraoperative risk of collision with an ACL tunnel during the drilling for the femoral ALL tunnel has been described. The purpose of this study was to investigate the various femoral drilling procedures to avoid tunnel collisions during combined double-bundle ACL and ALL reconstruction. Nine cadaveric knees were used in this study. ACL drilling was performed through the anteromedial portal to footprints of the posterolateral bundle at 120° (PL120) and 135° (PL135) knee flexion and the anteromedial bundle at 120° (AM120) and 135° (AM135) knee flexion. ALL drilling was performed at 0° (Cor0-ALL) and 30° (Cor30-ALL) coronal angles using a Kirschner wire (K-wire). The distance between the ALL footprint and ACL K-wire outlets, axial angles of ALL K-wires colliding with ACL K-wires, and distances from the ALL footprint to the collision point were measured. From these values, the safe zone, defined as the range of axial angles in which no collisions or penetrations occurred, was identified by simulation of tunnels utilized for reconstruction grafts in each drilling procedure. The point-to-point distance from the ALL footprint to the K-wire outlet was significantly greater in the AM120 than the AM135 (13.5 ± 3.1, 10.8 ± 3.2 mm; p = 0.048) and in the PL135 than the PL120 (18.3 ± 5.5, 16.1 ± 6.5 mm; p = 0.005) conditions, respectively. During an ACL drilling combination of PL135/AM120, a safe zone of > 45° in Cor30-ALL was identified. With a narrow safe zone during the PL135/AM120 combination only, the risk of femoral tunnel collisions in combined double-bundle ACL and ALL reconstruction is high. AM drilling at 120° and PL drilling at > 135° knee flexion, combined with ALL drilling at 30° coronal angle and > 45° axial angle, may reduce this risk.

Femoral tunnel length has no correlation with graft rupture: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Literature is controversial on femoral tunnel length as a risk factor for graft injury if the graft length in the tunnel is kept constant at ≥15 mm.

METHODS

A total of 1079 sportspersons, meeting our inclusion criteria, were assessed for graft rupture. Patients with femoral tunnel length (FTL) ≤30 mm were labeled as Group 1, while those with FTL > 30 mm were labeled as Group 2. Both groups were compared for potential risk factors for graft injury keeping graft length in the tunnel at ≥15 mm and statistical analysis was performed to study whether the femoral tunnel length acted as an additional risk factor.

RESULTS

Of 1079 sportspersons, 37 suffered from graft rupture. Patients with FTL > 30 mm were included in Group 1(n = 22) and patients with FTL ≤ 30 mm (n = 15) were included in Group 2. Both groups were comparable for risk factors for ACL injury: age (P = 0.37), gender (P = 0.53), mode of re-injury (P = 0.38), graft diameter (P = 0.71), level of sports activity (P = not significant), duration from injury to index surgery (P = 0.74), duration from index surgery to re-injury (P = 0.52), timing of return to sports after index surgery (P = 0.30), duration of sporting activity before second injury (P = 0.31), Tegner's level (P = not siginificant), Notch width index (P = 0.12) posterior slope (P = 0.77) and height (P = 0.41).

CONCLUSION

Because the graft length in the tunnel was kept at optimum and the risk factors for ACL injury were comparable in both groups at a follow up period, we suggest that femoral tunnel length is not a risk factor for graft failure.

Do bibliometric findings differ between Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science? Bibliometry of publications after oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometrics consists in quantitative and qualitative analysis of an individual's or group's communication (volume, visibility), and impacts research funding. There are a number of bibliometric data sources, functioning in different ways and liable to give rise to differing statistics. This point has not been investigated in relation to publication following presentation to a French congress. We therefore conducted a study comparing the main bibliometric instruments, aiming to assess: (1) publication rates following oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses according to the database used, and (2) citation rates for these publications according to database.

HYPOTHESIS

Publication and citation rates differ according to database. Material and method All 199 Abstracts of oral presentations to the 2013 and 2014 SFA Congresses were included. Based on author names and key-words, manual search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. Publication characteristics (citation rate) were studied using the 3 databases and the French SIGAPS (Système d'Interrogation, de Gestion et d'Analyse des Publications Scientifiques: Scientific Publication Search, Management and Analysis System) website.

RESULTS

Publication rates according to Medline and Google Scholar were the same (48.2%: 96 articles for 199 presentations), but significantly lower on Web of Science (44.7%: 89/199; p=0.002). Citation rates differed significantly (p<0.001) between sources, with Google Scholar listing a mean 1.5-3.4-fold more citations per article than the other 2 databases. Citation rates between the 3 databases correlated strongly (r=0.93).

DISCUSSION

The example presented in this study illustrates the differences in bibliometrics found between different databases. There was a 4% difference (7/199 articles) in publication rates following oral presentation to an SFA Congress, and even greater differences in citation rates per article, with 1.5-3.4-fold more citations according to Google Scholar. Bibliometric studies need to acknowledge the database(s) being used, which should be as many as possible to enhance exhaustiveness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; descriptive epidemiologic study.

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.