A meta-analysis on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Is modified transtibial technique inferior to independent drilling techniques?

Effects of modified trans-tibial versus trans-portal technique on stress patterns around the femoral tunnel in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction with different knee flexion angles using finite element analysis

Background

It is unclear whether different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft trajectories in the distal femur would have different effects on stress generated within the distal femur around the femoral tunnel during knee motion. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine differences in stress patterns around the femoral tunnel created by trans-portal (TP) vs. modified trans-tibial (TT) technique in anatomical ACL reconstruction at different knee flexion angles.

Methods

Twelve male subjects’ right knees were scanned with a high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scanner (slice thickness: 1 mm) at four different knee flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°). Three-dimensional (3D) models of these four different flexion angles were created and manipulated with several modelling programs. For the TP group, the virtual femoral tunnelling procedure was performed in a 135° flexion model from the low far anteromedial (AM) portal. For the modified TT group, the same knee models were drilled through the modified TT technique at 90° of flexion separately. Virtual grafts under tension of 40 N were put into corresponding bone tunnel and fixed at the outer aperture of femoral tunnels to simulate the suspensory fixation, followed by fixation of the grafts at the middle of tibial tunnels in the 0° knee flexion models. Finally, the models were exported to a finite element analysis package and analysed using ABAQUS/Explicit code (ABAQUS, USA) to monitor the stress occurring at the node where stress distribution occurred most significantly in the femoral bone around the bone tunnel.

Results

In general, both groups showed a high stress distribution in bony structures around inner and outer orifices of the femoral tunnel. Mean maximal stresses occurring at the lateral femoral condyle around the inner orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were found to be significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles except 90° of flexion. Mean maximal stresses monitored around the outer orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were also significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles.

Conclusions

Different tunnelling technologies could yield different stress patterns in the lateral femoral condyle around the femoral tunnel. During knee motion, higher stresses were noticed in the TP group than in the modified TT group, especially around inner and outer orifices of the tunnel. Position of the tunnel after reconstruction with the TP technique can have a greater effect on the stress increase in the femur compared to that with the modified TT technique.

Current and future of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques

In recent years, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has generally yielded favorable outcomes. However, ACL reconstruction has not provided satisfactory results in terms of the rate of returning to sports and prevention of osteoarthritis (OA) progression. In this paper, we outline current techniques for ACL reconstruction such as graft materials, double-bundle or single-bundle reconstruction, femoral tunnel drilling, all-inside technique, graft fixation, preservation of remnant, anterolateral ligament reconstruction, ACL repair, revision surgery, treatment for ACL injury with OA and problems, and discuss expected future trends. To enable many more orthopedic surgeons to achieve excellent ACL reconstruction outcomes with less invasive surgery, further studies aimed at improving surgical techniques are warranted. Further development of biological augmentation and robotic surgery technologies for ACL reconstruction is also required.

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.