Bicruciate lesion biomechanics, Part 1-Diagnosis: translations over 15 mm at 90° of knee flexion are indicative of a complete tear

Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis Is Effective in Restoring Knee Stability in a Chronic, Complex Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Injured Knee Model: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To compare knee stability after intra-articular isolated double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and single-bundle (SB) and DB ACLR combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in a chronic, complex anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-injured knee model.

METHODS

In 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees, we measured knee laxity in the following order: (1) intact knee; (2) ACL-sectioned knee; (3) complex ACL-injured knee model with additional sectioning of the anterolateral complex and the posterior horns of the medial and lateral menisci; (4) SB ACLR plus LET; (5) DB ACLR; and (6) DB ACLR plus LET.

RESULTS

In comparison with the intact knee, significantly increased internal rotation (IR) laxity persisted at 60° and 90° after DB ACLR (P = .002 and P = .003, respectively). SB ACLR plus LET and DB ACLR plus LET resulted in significant reductions in IR laxity at 90° (P = .003 and P = .037, respectively), representing overconstraint in IR. SB ACLR plus LET resulted in persistently increased external rotation (ER) laxity at 30°, 60°, and 90° (P = .001, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively). The DB ACLR condition persistently showed significant increases in anterior tibial translation laxity at 60° and 90° (P = .037 and P = .024, respectively). A greater increase in ER laxity was seen after SB ACLR plus LET versus DB ACLR plus LET at 30°, 60°, and 90° (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DB ACLR plus LET restored intact knee stability in IR, ER, and anterior tibial translation laxity at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion except for overconstraint in IR at 90° in a chronic, complex ACL-injured knee model.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This cadaveric study provides some biomechanical evidence to support performing DB ACLR combined with LET to restore knee stability after a complex, chronic knee injury involving an ACL tear combined with anterolateral complex injury and irreparable tears of the posterior horns of the medial and lateral menisci.

Suture Tape Augmentation Has No Effect on Anterior Tibial Translation, Gap Formation, or Load to Failure of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: A Biomechanical Pilot Study

Purpose

The purpose of our pilot study was to assess the effect of augmenting anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with suture tape on biomechanical parameters including anterior tibial translation, gap formation, and load to failure.

Methods

Ten fresh-frozen nonpaired cadaveric knees were dissected, and baseline anterior-posterior stability of both ACL-intact and -deficient knees was obtained. The specimens were randomized to undergo ACL repair either with or without suture tape reinforcement, and anterior tibial translation, as well as gap formation, was measured after cyclic loading. Finally, all specimens were subjected to a single pullout force to determine maximum load to failure. We performed t test analysis to compare means between groups, and significance was defined as P < .05.

Results

On t test analysis, no statistically significant difference was found regarding anterior tibial translation between the ACL-intact group and either repair group or between the repair group without suture tape augmentation and the repair group with suture tape augmentation. No significant difference in gap formation was detected between the repair groups with and without suture tape augmentation at 100 cycles (1.25 mm vs 1.02 mm, P = .6), 250 cycles (2.87 mm vs 2.12 mm, P = .3), and 500 cycles (4.5 mm vs 4.55 mm, P = .5). The average load to failure of the repairs without suture tape augmentation was not significantly different from that of the repairs with suture tape augmentation (725.9 N vs 725.7 N, P = .99).

Conclusions

In this pilot study, we did not identify a difference between ACL repairs with and without suture tape augmentation regarding anterior tibial translation, gap formation, or maximum load to failure.

Clinical Relevance

Treatment of ACL tears with primary ACL repair is a highly debated topic, and studies such as this study to further our understanding of the biomechanical properties of augmented ACL repairs are important for surgeons when deciding the best treatments for their patients.

Knee laxity in anterolateral complex injuries versus medial meniscus posterior horn injuries in anterior cruciate ligament injured knees: A cadaveric study

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable debate regarding the function of anterolateral knee structures, including the anterolateral ligament (ALL) and anterolateral capsule, as knee stabilizers in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injured knees. Medial meniscus posterior horn (MMPH) injuries have also been associated with increased knee laxity in ACL injured knees. The purpose of this cadaveric biomechanical study was to compare the effects of the anterolateral complex (ALC) injury and meniscectomy of MMPH on knee laxity in ACL injured knees.

HYPOTHESIS

ALC injury would have a greater effect on internal rotational laxity in ACL-injured knee than meniscectomy of MMPH.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Matched-pair 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees underwent biomechanical evaluation of knee laxity. After testing the intact knee and ACL sectioned knee (ACL-) in matched-pair 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees, two groups were established: an ALC sectioning (ACL-/ALC-) group (n=5) and a MMPH meniscectomy (ACL-/MMPH-) group (n=5). Knee laxity was measured in terms of internal-external rotation, anterior-posterior translation, and varus-valgus angulation for each condition at knee flexion angles of 0°, 30°, 60° and 90°.

RESULTS

After the additional sectioning of the ALC (ACL-/ALC-), the mean internal rotation at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° of knee flexion showed the greater internal rotation laxity compared than intact knee (p=0.020, 0.011, 0.005 and<0.001). It also significantly increased anterior translation from ACL- at 30° and 60° (p=0.011 and 0.005). In contrast, additional meniscectomy of the MMPH (ACL-/MMPH-) significantly increased external rotation laxity compared to intact knee (p=0.021, 0.018 and 0.024) and ACL- (p=0.037, 0.011 and 0.025) at 30°, 60° and 90°. ACL-/MMPH- also resulted in significantly increased anterior translation from ACL- at 30°, 60° and 90° (p=0.004, 0.008 and 0.002).

DISCUSSION

In conclusion, the anterolateral complex, which include the ALL and anterolateral capsule, may play an important role in stabilizing the knee against internal rotation and anterior translation, while the MMPH may contribute to resisting external rotation and anterior translation stability in ACL-injured knee.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, controlled laboratory study.

Bicruciate lesion biomechanics, Part 2-treatment using a simultaneous tensioning protocol: ACL fixation first is better than PCL fixation first to restore tibiofemoral orientation

PURPOSE

An uncommon technique for bicruciate ligament reconstruction involving simultaneous tensioning of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) grafts with ACL graft fixation first has been pointed out as superior to the "gold-standard" PCL graft fixation first. The purpose of this study was to compare tibiofemoral biomechanics between ACL fixation first and PCL fixation first in a simultaneous tensioning protocol for bicruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

12 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees (six matched pairs) were tested using a custom testing system. Neutral tibial position representing tibiofemoral orientation, anterior-posterior (AP) tibial translation, varus-valgus laxity, and internal-external rotation were measured using a Microscribe 3DLX at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion. The following knee conditions were evaluated: intact, bicruciate deficient and following bicruciate reconstruction. A simultaneous tensioning protocol was used for bicruciate reconstruction and PCL fixation first was compared to ACL fixation first. PCL graft fixation was always performed at 90° of flexion and ACL graft fixation was always performed at full extension.

RESULTS

ACL fixation first achieved a tibiofemoral orientation closer to the intact knee than PCL fixation first at 90° flexion (1.8 ± 1.6 mm versus 6.1 ± 3.2 mm, p = 0.016). PCL fixation first had a larger decrease in AP translation than ACL fixation first at 30° flexion (64.6 ± 3.5% vs. 58.3 ± 2.4%, p = 0.01). No significant differences were found for varus/valgus, external-internal rotation decrements after bicruciate reconstruction nor for AP translation, varus/valgus and internal/external rotation increase after bicruciate lesion comparing ACL fixation first to PCL fixation first.

CONCLUSION

Bicruciate ligament reconstruction using a simultaneous tensioning protocol with ACL fixation first resulted in a closer to normal tibiofemoral orientation. This study will help guide surgeons in decision making for the graft tensioning protocol and fixation sequence in a bicruciate ligament reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V therapeutic study.