Transtibial ACL femoral tunnel preparation increases odds of repeat ipsilateral knee surgery

Evaluation of retear rates following transtibial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Functional outcomes and GNRB assessment with a mean 6.3-year follow-up

The method of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) using the tibia-dependent femoral tunnel technique is highly criticized. It would not allow anatomical placement of the graft and would therefore lead to a high rate of retear. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the rate of retear in ACL reconstructions using the transtibial tunnel (TT) technique and assess functional outcomes. The study included 148 patients (153 knees) who underwent ACL reconstruction with a minimum two-year follow-up period. Patients underwent clinical examinations, completed functional questionnaires (KOOS, Lysholm, ACL-RSI), and underwent laximetry measurements with GNRB at 134 N and 200 N. Two patients had retears detected on MRI and underwent revision surgery prior to the study, leaving 151 knees for evaluation. The retear rate was 6.6 %, with an overall rate of 7.8 % when including revision cases. Laxity measurements obtained with GNRB showed a strong correlation with functional scores, indicating worse scores with greater laxity differences (p < 0.0001). The retear rate observed in this study was at the higher end of those reported in the literature. The study indications for TT ACL reconstructions must be defined more specifically to reduce failure rates. Level of evidence: III (retrospective cohort study).

Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques and Postoperative Care Among Leaders in the Field: A Survey of the Herodicus Society

Background

Despite a growing body of literature regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), there remains a wide diversity in surgical technique and clinical practice across providers.

Purpose

To (1) describe current ACLR practice preferences among members of the Herodicus society and (2) determine whether these preferences are influenced by years in practice and overall surgical volume.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

A 24-question survey investigating surgeons' practices and preferred ACLR surgical techniques was sent via email to all active Herodicus Society members. Survey responses were subdivided by years of experience and overall ACLR annual case volume. Descriptive statistics were compiled and chi-square testing was utilized to determine the significance of experience and case volume on survey responses.

Results

Of the 113 invited Herodicus Society members who perform ACLR, 69 (61%) completed the survey. Respondents had a mean ± SD of 30.9 ± 9.8 years of experience in clinical practice and performed a mean of 96.0 ± 50.7 primary and 21.6 ± 16.9 revision ACLR annually. Of revision cases, 72.1% were performed using a single-stage technique. Mean frequency of graft usage by surgeon was bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft (58.6%), quadriceps autograft (14.6%), hamstring tendon autograft (14.0%), and allograft (11.8%). The plurality of surgeons responded that they used anterolateral augmentation "rarely" in primary ACLR (39.1%) and "sometimes" in revision ACLR (31.9%), with the majority performing lateral extra-articular tenodesis (66.7%) rather than anterolateral ligament reconstruction (14.5%). Most surgeons would not allow a 20-year-old football player to return before 7 months after ACLR (71.0%) but highly valued return-to-sports testing to determine readiness (94.2%). Higher volume surgeons performed single-stage revision ACLR at a significantly higher rate (79.8% vs 62.9%, P = .02) and significantly differed in return-to-sports criteria, with a greater proportion relying primarily on biometric testing (P = .01).

Conclusion

The survey demonstrated that, in the Herodicus Society, a wide range of preferences exist regarding ACLR surgical technique. Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft is the most frequent primary ACLR graft choice. Most participants have not embraced newer techniques such as anterolateral or suture tape augmentation. Return to sports is generally not allowed before 7 months and heavily factors-in return-to-sports testing metrics, suggesting that purely time-based criteria for return to sports is not modern practice among elite sports medicine surgeons.

Surgical Techniques in Primary ACL Reconstruction: Getting It Right the First Time

The ideal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is an individualized anatomic approach aimed at restoring the native structure and function of the knee. Surgeons are tasked with difficult decisions during operative planning, including the optimal graft choice for the patient and appropriate anatomic tunnel placement. Special considerations should additionally be given for skeletally immature patients and those at high-risk for failure, including younger, active patients participating in pivoting sports. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the individualized approach to ACLR, including the necessary preoperative and operative considerations to optimize patient outcomes.

Functional and Symptomatic Improvements Based on the Femoral Tunnel Drilling Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The current literature comparing femoral tunnel techniques often reports on short-term outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but only a few studies have analyzed long-term outcomes. In addition, many studies have compared transtibial to anteromedial portal techniques without differentiating whether rigid or flexible reaming is used, making it difficult to infer how the techniques truly compare to one another.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to detect differences in patient-reported outcome scores in those treated with three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Of 650 patients treated for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries with ACLR, 350 were 5+ years out from surgery. Of these patients, 111 completed patient-reported outcome surveys (PROs). The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to detect differences between patients treated with either of the three femoral tunnel drilling techniques: transtibial (TT), anteromedial portal with rigid reaming (AMP-RR), or anteromedial portal with flexible reaming (AMP-FR). Bonferroni correction was applied to the p-values to reduce the risk of making a type 1 error.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the three groups in demographics or postoperative PROs. However, there was a significant change between pre-surgery and post-surgery PROs. TT, when compared to AMP-RR, had a greater increase in satisfaction and greater improvement in a patient's ability to go up and down the stairs from pre-surgery to post-surgery. AMP-FR, when compared to TT, had greater improvement of the patient's knee stiffness/swelling. AMP-FR, when compared to AMP-RR, had greater improvement in knee pain during stairs and the ability to go down the stairs. No differences in return to sport, additional procedures on the affected knee (meniscal surgeries or cyclops lesion excisions), or revision surgery rates were found.

CONCLUSION

Overall, postoperative PROs did not show statistically significant differences between the three femoral tunnel drilling techniques. Differences, however, were identified in the responses to specific questions on PRO surveys, which may have otherwise been overlooked. It is important to recognize the differences between TT, AMP-RR, and AMP-FR in the improvement of stair climbing and swelling/stiffness as these likely directly affect a patient's satisfaction from pre-ACLR to post-ACLR.

Clinical Outcomes of a Novel Hybrid Transtibial Technique for Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Large Single-Center Case Series With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background

A novel hybrid transtibial (HTT) approach to femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been developed that circumvents the need for knee hyperflexion and orients the graft in the most anatomic position without sacrificing the tunnel length or aperture.

Hypothesis

Patients who underwent ACLR utilizing the HTT technique would achieve excellent patient-reported outcome scores and experience low rates of graft failure and reoperations.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary ACLR at a single institution between 2005 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with the HTT, anteromedial portal (AMP), and transtibial (TT) approaches were matched based on age, sex, and body mass index ±3 kg/m2. Demographic and surgical data as well as femoral tunnel angle measurements on anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were collected for the 3 groups. However, clinical outcomes were only reported for the HTT group because of concerns of graft heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 170 patients (median age, 26.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 18.0-35.0 years]) who underwent ACLR using the HTT approach were included. The median coronal- and sagittal-plane femoral tunnel angles were 47° (IQR, 42°-53°) and 40° (IQR, 34°-46°), respectively. The sagittal-plane femoral tunnel angles in the HTT group were significantly more horizontal compared with those in the TT group (P < .0001), whereas the coronal-plane femoral tunnel angles in the HTT group were found to be significantly more vertical compared with those in the AMP group (P = .001) and more horizontal compared with those in the TT group (P < .0001). The graft failure and reoperation rates in the HTT group at a minimum 2-year follow-up were 1.8% (3/170) and 4.7% (8/170), respectively. The complication rate was 6.5% (11/170), with the most common complication being subjective stiffness in 7 patients. The median Lysholm score was 89.5 (IQR, 79.0-98.0); the median International Knee Documentation Committee score was 83.9 (IQR, 65.5-90.8); and the median Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical and mental component summary scores were 55.0 (IQR, 52.6-55.9) and 56.2 (IQR, 49.1-59.3), respectively.

Conclusion

ACLR using the HTT technique was associated with low graft retear and revision surgery rates and good patient-reported outcome scores at medium-term follow-up and demonstrated femoral tunnel obliquity on postoperative radiographs that correlated with optimal parameters previously reported in cadaveric and biomechanical studies.

Race and Gender Differences in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Femoral Footprint Location and Orientation: A 3D-MRI Study

OBJECTIVE

The femoral tunnel position is crucial to anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, but the ideal femoral footprint position are mostly based on small-sized cadaveric studies and elderly patients with a single ethnic background. This study aimed to identify potential race- or gender-specific differences in the ACL femoral footprint location and ACL orientation, determine the correlation between the ACL orientation and the femoral footprint location.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of 90 Caucasian participants and 90 matched Chinese subjects were used for reconstruction of three-dimensional (3D) femur and tibial models. ACL footprints were sketched by several experienced orthopedic surgeons on the MRI photographs. The anatomical coordinate system was applied to reflect the ACL footprint location and orientation of scanned samples. The femoral ACL footprint locations were represented by their distance from the origin in the anteroposterior (A/P) and distal-proximal (D/P) directions. The orientation of the ACL was described with the sagittal, coronal and transverse deviation angles. The ACL orientation and femoral footprint position were compared by the two-sided t-test. Multiple regression analysis was used to study the correlation between the orientation and femoral footprint position.

RESULTS

The average femur footprint A/P position was -6.6 ± 1.6 mm in the Chinese group and -5.1 ± 2.3 mm in the Caucasian group, (p < 0.001). The average femur footprint D/P position was -2.8 ± 2.4 mm in Chinese and - 3.9 ± 2.0 mm in Caucasians, (p = 0.001). The Chinese group had a mean difference of a 1.5 mm (6.1%) more posterior and 1.1 mm (5.3%) more proximal in the position from the flexion-extension axis (FEA). And the males have a sagittal plane elevation about 4-5° higher than females in both racial groups. Furthermore, for every 1% (0.40 mm) increase in A/P and D/P values, the sagittal angle decreased by about 0.12° and 0.24°, respectively; the coronal angle decreased by about 0.10° and 0.30°, respectively. For every 1% (0.40 mm) increase in D/P value, the transverse angle increased by about 0.14°.

CONCLUSION

The significant race- and gender-specific differences in the femoral footprint and orientation of the ACL should be taken in consideration during anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Furthermore, the quantitative relationship between the ACL orientation and the footprint location might provide some reference for surgeons to develop a surgical strategy in ACL single-bundle reconstruction and revision.

Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Portal Technique for Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Primary Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Level 1 and 2 Evidence of Clinical, Revision, and Radiological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although numerous clinical studies have compared transtibial (TT) and anteromedial portal (AMP) drilling of femoral tunnels during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), there is no high-quality, evidence-based consensus regarding which technique affords the best outcome.

HYPOTHESIS

There would be no difference between the TT and AMP techniques in terms of knee stability, patient-reported outcomes, incidence of revision, and radiological results.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to February 1, 2021. Level 1 and 2 clinical trials that compared TT and AM techniques were included. Data were meta-analyzed for the outcome measures of knee stability, patient-reported functional outcomes, incidence of revision, and radiological results. Dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratios (ORs), and continuous variables were presented as mean differences (MDs) and standard mean differences (SMDs).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 18 clinical studies, level of evidence 1 or 2, that involved 53,888 patients. Pooled data showed that the AMP group had a lower side-to-side difference (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.39; P = .009), a lower incidence of pivot-shift phenomenon (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.26 to 10.79; P = .02), and a higher postoperative Lysholm score (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.08; P = .005) than the TT group. However, no statistically significant differences were seen in other outcomes, including subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores (SMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.09; P = .30) or grades (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.35 to 2.49; P = .89), postoperative activity level (MD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.15; P = .35), and incidence of revision ACLR (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .45). The TT technique was more likely to create longer (SMD, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.05 to 2.06; P = .04) and more oblique (SMD, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.11; P < .001) femoral tunnels than the AMP technique, and a higher height ratio of the aperture position was detected with the TT technique (SMD, -3.51; 95% CI, -5.54 to -1.49; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The AMP technique for ACLR may be more likely to produce better knee stability and improved clinical outcomes than the TT technique, but no difference was found in the incidence of revision between the 2 groups.

The Hybrid Transtibial Technique for Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Finite Element Analysis Model of Graft Bending Angles and Peak Graft Stresses in Comparison With Transtibial and Anteromedial Portal Techniques

PURPOSE

The purpose of this finite element analysis was to compare femoral tunnel length; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft bending angle; and peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area created by the transtibial, anteromedial portal (AMP), and hybrid transtibial techniques.

METHODS

Finite element analysis modeling was used to examine anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction models based on transtibial, AMP, and hybrid transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques. An evaluation of femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area was done in comparison of these techniques.

RESULTS

The femoral tunnel created with the hybrid transtibial technique was 45.3 mm, which was 13.3% longer than that achieved with the AMP technique but 15.2% shorter than that with the transtibial technique. The femoral graft bending angle with the hybrid transtibial technique (105°) was less acute than that with the AMP technique (102°), but more acute than that with the transtibial technique (109°). At 11° knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial technique had 22% less femoral contact force, 21% less tibial contact force, 21% less graft tension than the AMP technique. Yet, the hybrid transtibial technique had 41% greater femoral contact force, 39% greater tibial contact force, 33% greater graft tension, and 6% greater graft von Mises stress than the transtibial technique. A similar trend was found for the anterior knee drawer test. At both 6-mm anterior tibial displacement and 11° knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial and AMP techniques had at least 51% more femoral contact area than the transtibial technique.

CONCLUSION

This finite element analysis highlights that the hybrid transtibial technique is a true hybrid between the AMP and transtibial techniques for femoral tunnel drilling regarding femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, and peak graft stress.

Association Between Anteromedial Portal Versus Tibial Tunnel Drilling and Meniscal Reoperation Risk Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) provides functional stability to an injured knee. While multiple techniques can be used to drill the femoral tunnel during ACLR, a single technique has yet to be proven as clinically superior. One marker of postoperative functional stability is subsequent meniscal tears; a lower risk of subsequent meniscal surgery could be expected with improved knee stability.

PURPOSE

To determine if there is a meniscal protective effect when using an anteromedial portal (AMP) femoral tunnel drilling technique versus transtibial (TT) drilling.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Data from Kaiser Permanente's ACLR registry were used to identify patients who had a primary isolated ACLR between 2009 and 2018; those with previous surgery in the index knee and meniscal pathology at the time of ACLR were excluded. The exposure of interest was TT (n = 2711) versus AMP (n = 5172) drilling. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of a subsequent ipsilateral meniscal reoperation with adjustment for age, sex, femoral fixation, and graft choice. We observed a shift in surgeon practice from the TT to AMP over the study time frame; therefore, the relationship between technique and surgeon experience on meniscal reoperation was evaluated using an interaction term in the model.

RESULTS

At the 9-year follow-up, the crude cumulative meniscal reoperation probability for AMP procedures was 7.76%, while for TT it was 5.88%. After adjustment for covariates, we observed a higher risk for meniscal reoperation with AMP compared with TT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05-2.23). When stratifying by surgeon experience, this adverse association was observed for patients who had their procedure performed by surgeons with less AMP experience (no previous AMP ACLR: HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.84-1.91) while a protective association was observed for patients who had their procedure with more experienced surgeons (40 previous AMP ACLRs: HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Drilling the femoral tunnel via the AMP was associated with a higher risk of subsequent meniscal surgery compared with TT drilling. However, when AMP drilling was used by surgeons experienced with the technique, a meniscal protective effect was observed.

Minimizing the risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in athletes. A narrative review of the current evidence

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most common sport-related injuries and the request for ACL reconstructions is increasing nowadays. Unfortunately, ACL graft failures are reported in up to 34.2% in athletes, representing a traumatic and career-threatening event. It can be convenient to understand the various risk factors for ACL failure, in order to properly inform the patients about the expected outcomes and to minimize the chance of poor results. In literature, a multitude of studies have been performed on the failure risks after ACL reconstruction, but the huge amount of data may generate much confusion.The aim of this review is to resume the data collected from literature on the risk of graft failure after ACL reconstruction in athletes, focusing on the following three key points: individuate the predisposing factors to ACL reconstruction failure, analyze surgical aspects which may have significant impact on outcomes, highlight the current criteria regarding safe return to sport after ACL reconstruction.

The morphology of the femoral footprint of the anterior cruciate ligament changes with aging from a large semicircular shape to a small flat ribbon-like shape

PURPOSE

Compare the differences in the morphology of the ACL femoral footprint between the cadavers of the young and elderly in consideration of the degenerative physiological process that occurs with aging.

METHODS

The femoral footprint of the ACL was dissected in 81 knees of known gender and age (45 male/36 female). They were divided into four groups by age and gender, establishing 50 years as the cut-off point to divide patients by age. Three observers analyzed the femoral footprint dissections, and the shapes were described and classified. The area and morphometric characteristics of the femoral insertion of the ACL were determined and these were compared between genders and age groups.

RESULTS

The femoral footprint of the ACL from the cadavers of males younger than 50 years of age presented a semicircular morphology in 90% of the cases. In males aged more than 50 years, a ribbon-like morphology was found in 96% of the cases. In women less than 50 years old, the semicircular morphology was observed in 93.7% of the cases. In women aged over 50 years old, the ribbon-like morphology was found in 95% of the cases. A significant difference was observed between the prevalence rates of the morphologies, area size and measurements of the younger and older groups (p < 0.001 for both genders).

CONCLUSIONS

The femoral insertion of the ACL presents variations in its morphology, area and morphometric characteristics over time. It goes from a large semicircular shape that almost contacts the posterior articular cartilage to a smaller, flattened ribbon-like shape that moves away from the edge of the articular cartilage. It is bounded anteriorly by the lateral intercondylar ridge. These findings should be considered to avoid employing reconstruction techniques in which femoral tunnels with oval or rectangular shapes are used in patients under 50 years of age because they do not correspond to the morphology of the femoral insertion of the ACL in this age group.

Effect of Tibial Tunnel Placement Using the Lateral Meniscus as a Landmark on Clinical Outcomes of Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear if use of the lateral meniscus anterior horn (LMAH) as a landmark will produce consistent tunnel positions in the anteroposterior (AP) distance across the tibial plateau.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the AP location of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction tibial tunnels utilizing the LMAH as an intra-articular landmark and to examine how tunnel placement affects knee stability and clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 98 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with quadrupled hamstring tendon autografts between March 2013 and June 2017. Patients with unilateral ACL injuries and a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included in the study. All guide pins for the tibial tunnel were placed using the posterior border of the LMAH as an intra-articular landmark. Guide pins were evaluated with the Bernard-Hertel grid in the femur and the Stäubli-Rauschning method in the tibia. Patients were divided by the radiographic location of the articular entry point of the guide pin with relation to the anterior 40% of the tibial plateau. Outcomes were evaluated by the Marx Activity Scale and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form. Anterior knee laxity was evaluated using a KT-1000 arthrometer and graded with the objective portion of the IKDC form. Rotational stability was evaluated using the pivot-shift test.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were available for follow-up at a mean 28.6 months. The overall percentage of AP placement of the tibial tunnel was 39.3% ± 3.8% (mean ± SD; range, 31%-47%). Side-to-side difference of anterior knee laxity was significantly lower in the anterior group than the posterior group (1.2 ± 1.1 mm vs 2.5 ± 1.3 mm; P < .001; r = 0.51). The percentage of AP placement of the tibial tunnel demonstrated a positive medium correlation with side-to-side difference of anterior knee laxity as measured by a KT-1000 arthrometer (r = 0.430; P < .001). The anterior group reported significantly better distribution of IKDC grading as compared with the posterior group (26 grade A and 6 grade B vs 15 grade A and 13 grade B; P = .043; V = 0.297). The pivot-shift test results and outcome scores showed no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Using the posterior border of the LMAH as an intraoperative landmark yields a wide range of tibial tunnel locations along the tibial plateau, with anterior placement of the tibial tunnel leading toward improved anterior knee stability.

Creating a Femoral Tunnel Aperture at the Anteromedial Footprint Versus the Central Footprint in ACL Reconstruction: Comparison of Contact Stress Patterns

Background:

It remains unclear whether an anteromedial (AM) footprint or a central footprint anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft exhibits less contact stress with the femoral tunnel aperture. This contact stress can generate graft attrition forces, which can lead to potential graft failure.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to compare the difference in contact stress patterns of the graft around a femoral tunnel that is created at the anatomic AM footprint versus the central footprint. It was hypothesized that the difference in femoral tunnel positions would influence the contact stress at the interface between the reconstructed graft and the femoral tunnel orifice.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 24 patients who underwent anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction were included in this study. In 12 patients, the femoral tunnels were created at the center of the native AM footprint (AM group), and in the remaining 12 patients the center of the femoral tunnel was placed in the anatomic central footprint (central group). Three-dimensional knee models were created and manipulated using several modeling programs, and the graft-tunnel angle (GTA) was determined using a special software program. The peak contact stresses generated on the virtual ACL graft around the femoral tunnel orifice were calculated using a finite element method.

Results:

The mean GTA was significantly more obtuse in the AM group than in the central group (124.2° ± 5.9° vs 112.6° ± 7.9°; P = .001). In general, both groups showed high stress distribution on the anterior surface of the graft, which came in contact with the anterior aspect of the femoral tunnel aperture. The degree of stress in the central group (5.3 ± 2.6 MPa) was significantly higher than that in the AM group (1.2 ± 1.1 MPa) (P < .001).

Conclusion:

Compared with the AM footprint ACL graft, the central footprint ACL graft developed significantly higher contact stress in the extended position, especially around the anterior aspect of the femoral tunnel orifice.

Clinical Relevance:

The contact stress of the ACL graft at the extended position of the knee may be minimized by creating the femoral tunnel at the AM-oriented footprint.

Anterior root of lateral meniscus and medial tibial spine are reliable intraoperative landmarks for the tibial footprint of anterior cruciate ligament

PURPOSE

The aims of the present study were (1) to investigate the tibial footprint location of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in both ACL-ruptured and ACL-intact patients, (2) to identify the relationship of the tibial footprint to the anterior root of the lateral meniscus (ARLM) and medial tibial spine (MTS), and (3) to evaluate the reliability of the ARLM and MTS for identifying the center of the tibial ACL footprint.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance images of 90 knees with ACL rupture and 90 matched-controlled knees were used to create three-dimensional models of the tibia. The tibial ACL footprint was outlined on each model, and its location was measured using an anatomical coordinate system.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the location of the tibial footprint was found between ACL-ruptured and ACL-intact knees. The tibial ACL footprint was located in very close proximity to the ARLM, especially in the M/L direction. The safe zone of tibial tunnel reaming for avoiding damage to the ARLM was 2.6 mm lateral to the center of the native tibial footprint. Both the ARLM and MTS were reliable intraoperative landmarks for identifying the tibial footprint.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of the safe zone of tibial tunnel reaming for avoiding injury to the ARLM. Both the ARLM and MTS might be reliable landmarks for identifying the center of the tibial ACL footprint and may facilitate tibial tunnel placement during anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction, especially in cases of revision where the tibial ACL stump is not available.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Superior Postoperative Stability and Functional Outcomes With Anteromedial Versus Transtibial Technique of Single-Bundle Autologous Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative stability and functional outcomes of anteromedial (AM)- and transtibial (TT)-based single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

A meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of single-bundle hamstring ACL reconstruction using the AM and TT techniques was performed. Prospective randomized controlled trials identified from searches of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were included in this review. The outcome measures analyzed included postoperative Lachman test and pivot-shift test results, side-to-side difference, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score.

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized controlled trials (654 patients) were included in this review. The AM technique, compared with the TT technique, resulted in superior postoperative stability based on the negative Lachman test rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.24; P = .03; 95% prediction interval [PI], 0.32 to 3.46), negative pivot-shift test rate (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.28; P = .002; 95% PI, 0.40 to 2.88), and side-to-side difference (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.32 mm; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.16; P < .0001; 95% PI, -0.55 to -0.09). Likewise, the AM technique contributed to superior postoperative functional outcomes based on the proportion of IKDC grade A findings (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.32; P = .03; 95% PI, 0.40 to 2.83) and the Lysholm score (WMD, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.41; P = .007; 95% PI, -0.22 to 1.86). However, the AM and TT techniques had comparable subjective IKDC scores (WMD, 0.98; 95% CI, -0.91 to 2.88; P = .31; 95% PI, -3.18 to 5.14) and Tegner activity scores (WMD, 0.32; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.86; P = .25; 95% PI, -3.84 to 4.48).

CONCLUSIONS

The AM method of single-bundle hamstring ACL reconstruction results in superior postoperative stability and functional outcomes compared with the TT method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

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.

A Hybrid Transtibial Technique Combines the Advantages of Anteromedial Portal and Transtibial Approaches: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The anteromedial (AM) portal and transtibial (TT) approaches are 2 common anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) femoral tunnel drilling techniques, each with unique benefits and disadvantages. A hybrid TT (HTT) technique using medial portal guidance of a flexible TT guide wire has recently been described that may combine the strengths of both the AM portal and the TT approaches.

HYPOTHESIS

The HTT technique will achieve anatomic femoral tunnel apertures similar to the AM portal technique, with improved femoral tunnel length and orientation.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 30 consecutive patients with primary ACL tears were randomized to undergo the TT, AM portal, or HTT technique for femoral tunnel positioning at the time of reconstruction. All patients underwent 3-dimensional computed tomography of the operative knee at 6 weeks postoperatively. Femoral and tibial tunnel aperture positions and tunnel lengths, as well as graft bending angles in the sagittal and coronal planes, were measured.

RESULTS

Tibial tunnel lengths and aperture positions were identical between the 3 groups. The AM portal and HTT techniques achieved identical femoral aperture positions in regard to both height (P = .629) and depth (P = .582). By contrast, compared with the AM portal and HTT techniques, femoral apertures created with the TT technique were significantly higher (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) and shallower (P = .014 and P = .022, respectively) in the notch. The mean femoral tunnel length varied significantly between the groups, measuring 35.2, 41.6, and 54.1 mm for the AM portal, HTT, and TT groups, respectively (P < .001). Last, there was no difference between the mean coronal (P = .190) and sagittal (P = .358) graft bending angles between the TT and HTT groups. By contrast, compared with the TT and HTT techniques, femoral tunnels created with the AM portal technique were significantly more angulated in the coronal plane (17.7° [P < .001] and 12.5° [P = .006], respectively) and sagittal plane (13.5° [P < .001] and 10.5° [P = .013], respectively).

CONCLUSION

This prospective randomized controlled trial found that the HTT technique achieved femoral aperture positions equally as anatomic as the AM portal technique but produced longer, less angulated femoral tunnels, which may help reduce graft strain and mismatch. As such, this hybrid approach may represent a beneficial combination of both the TT and the AM portal techniques.

REGISTRATION

NCT02795247 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Anatomic ACL reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature for radiographic prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) at a minimum of 10 years following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with anatomic vs. non-anatomic techniques. It was hypothesized that the incidence of OA at long-term follow-up would be lower following anatomic compared to non-anatomic ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies reporting OA prevalence by radiographic classification scales at a minimum of 10 years following ACLR with autograft. Studies were categorized as anatomic if they met or exceeded a score of 8 according the Anatomic ACL Reconstruction Scoring Checklist (AARSC), while those with a score less than 8 were categorized as non-anatomic/non-specified. Secondary outcomes included graft failure and measures of knee stability (KT-1000, Pivot Shift) and functional outcomes [Lysholm, Tegner, subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores]. OA prevalence on all radiographic scales was recorded and adapted to a normalized scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included, of which 5 achieved a score of 8 on the AARSC. Using a normalized OA classification scale, 87 of 375 patients (23.2%) had diagnosed OA at a mean follow-up of 15.3 years after anatomic ACLR and 744 of 1696 patients (43.9%) had OA at mean follow-up of 15.9 years after non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. The AARSC scores were 9.2 ± 1.3 for anatomic ACLR and 5.1 ± 1.1 for non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. Secondary outcomes were relatively similar between techniques but inconsistently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that anatomic ACLR, defined as an AARSC score ≥ 8, was associated with lower OA prevalence at long-term follow-up. Additional studies reporting long-term outcomes following anatomic ACLR are needed, as high-level studies of anatomic ACLR are lacking. The AARSC is a valuable resource in performing and evaluating anatomic ACLR. Anatomic ACLR, as defined by the AARSC, may reduce the long-term risk of post-traumatic OA following ACL injury to a greater extent than non-anatomic ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Retensioning-A Novel Revision Procedure Using Suture Augmentation: A Case Report With A 3-Year Follow-up

CASE

We report the case of a 44-year-old woman with previous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction 25 years ago in the right knee, who sustained a bucket-handle medial meniscus tear after pain and instability while pivoting during tennis. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated an intact but vertical and anterior ACL graft. A novel ACL retensioning procedure with suture augmentation (SA) was performed as the revision procedure. Excellent clinical outcomes and knee stability were obtained at both 17 and 36 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

In certain cases, ACL retensioning with SA may be performed as the revision procedure for unsuccessful primary ACL reconstruction.

Anteromedial positioning of the femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is the best option to avoid revision: a single surgeon registry

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to compare the risk of revision of single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction between the anteromedial, transtibial and outside-in techniques.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from a single surgeon's registry. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon using the anteromedial portal, transtibial and outside-in technique, operated between 1 November 2003 to 31 December 2016, were eligible for inclusion. A minimum follow-up of 2 years was used, and the end-point of the study was revision surgery.

RESULTS

The total number of registered surgeries identified was 665; 109 were excluded, and 556 was the final sample. The overall revision rate was 8.7%. The transtibial technique presented 14/154 [9.9%] of revisions, the transportal 11/96 [11.4%] and the outside-in 22/306 [7.2%]. Separating the outside-in group into central outside-in and anteromedial (AM) outside-in, 18/219 [8.2%] was found for the central outside-in and 4/87 [4.5%] for the AM outside-in technique. Statistical evaluation of the first comparison (transtibial vs. transportal vs. outside-in) obtained p = (n.s.) The second comparison (transtibial vs. central transportal vs. central outside-in vs. AM outside-in, p = (n.s). Placement was also evaluated: high anteromedial placement (transtibial) vs. central (transportal and central outside-in technique) vs. AM placement (AM outside-in). The high AM placement presented 14/154 [9.9%] of revision, the central placement 29/315 [9.2%] and the AM placement 4/87 [4.5%], p = (n.s.) The AM placement was also compared with the other placements (high and central AM), p = (n.s.) CONCLUSION: Based on the registry of a single surgeon during 14 years of ACL reconstruction, the placement of the femoral tunnel in the high anteromedial region was associated with a rupture rate of 9.9%, central placement with 9.2% and anteromedial placement with 4.5%.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of anterior cruciate ligament injury - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

This clinical guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, endorsed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Japanese Orthopaedic Society of Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine (JOSKAS).

METHODS

The JOA ACL guideline committee revised the previous guideline based on "Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014", which proposed a desirable method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan. Furthermore, the importance of "the balance of benefit and harm" was also emphasized. This guideline consists of 21 clinical questions (CQ) and 23 background questions (BQ). For each CQ, outcomes from the literature were collected and evaluated systematically according to the adopted study design.

RESULTS

We evaluated the objectives and results of each study in order to make a decision on the level of evidence so as to integrate the results with our recommendations for each CQ. For BQ, the guideline committee proposed recommendations based on the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is intended to be used by physicians, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists, and athletic trainers managing ACL injuries. We hope that this guideline is useful for appropriate decision-making and improved management of ACL injuries.

Autologous Bone Graft Versus Silicate-Substituted Calcium Phosphate in the Treatment of Tunnel Defects in 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study With a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years

PURPOSE

To compare and evaluate knee laxity and functional outcomes between autologous bone graft and silicate-substituted calcium phosphate (Si-CaP) in the treatment of tunnel defects in 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2012 and 2015 with a total of 40 patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR. The tunnels were filled with autologous iliac crest cancellous bone graft in 20 patients (control group) and with Si-CaP in the other 20 patients (intervention group). After a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, functional outcomes were assessed by KT-1000 arthrometry (side-to-side [STS] difference), the Tegner score, the Lysholm score, and the International Knee Documentation Committee score.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients (follow-up rate, 92.5%) with an average age of 31 years were followed up for 3.4 years (range, 2.2-5.5 years). The KT-1000 measurement did not show any STS difference between the bone graft group (0.9 ± 1.5 mm) and the Si-CaP group (0.7 ± 2.0 mm) (P = .731). One patient in the intervention group (5%) had an STS difference greater than 5 mm. Both groups showed significant improvements in the Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee score from preoperative assessment to final follow-up (P ≤ .002), without any difference between the 2 groups (P ≥ .396). Complications requiring revision occurred in 4 control patients (22%) and in 2 patients in the intervention group (11%) (P = .660). No complications in relation to Si-CaP were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalent knee laxity and clinical function outcomes were noted 3 years after surgery in both groups of patients. Si-CaP bone substitute is therefore a safe alternative to autologous bone graft for 2-stage ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Do Rotation and Measurement Methods Affect Reliability of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tunnel Position on 3D Reconstructed Computed Tomography?

Background:

The literature has seldom investigated the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tunnel position while considering the effect of rotation of 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images during measurements.

Hypothesis:

We hypothesized that (1) measurement of the ACL tunnel position in the femur and tibia through use of 3D-CT is considerably influenced by rotation of the 3D model and (2) there exists a reliable measurement method for ACL tunnel position least affected by rotation.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

The 3D-CT images of 30 randomly selected patients who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. For femoral tunnel assessments, rectangular reference frames were used that involved the highest point of the intercondylar notch and outer margins of the lateral femoral condyle (method 1), the highest point of the intercondylar notch and outer margins of the lateral wall of the intercondylar notch (method 2), and the lowest point of the intercondylar notch and outer margins of the lateral femoral condyle (method 3). For tibial tunnel assessments, rectangular reference frames with the cortical outline at the articular surface of the tibia (method A) and the cortical outline of the proximal tibia (method B) were used. For both femoral and tibial assessments, the tunnel positions at 5°, 10°, and 15° of rotation of the 3D model were compared with that at a neutral position.

Results:

The values measured by methods 1 and 3 showed significant differences at greater than 5° of rotation compared with the value at the neutral position, whereas method 2 showed relatively consistent results. However, the values measured with both methods A and B showed significant differences at greater than 5° of rotation compared with the value at the neutral position.

Conclusion:

The tunnel position on 3D-CT images was significantly influenced by rotation during measurements. For femoral tunnel position, measurement with a reference frame using the lateral wall of the intercondylar notch (method 2) was the least affected by rotation, with relatively consistent results.

Clinical Relevance:

This study demonstrates that measurement using the lateral wall of the intercondylar notch might be a consistent and reliable method for evaluating the ACL femoral tunnel position considering the effect of 3D-CT image rotation during measurements. However, both methods to measure tibial tunnel position described in this study were similarly affected by rotation.

The Femoral Footprint Position of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Might Be a Predisposing Factor to a Noncontact Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture

BACKGROUND

Although the femoral tunnel position is crucial to anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the recommendations for the ideal femoral footprint position are mostly based on cadaveric studies with small sample sizes, elderly patients with unknown ACL status, and 2-dimensional techniques. Furthermore, a potential difference in the femoral ACL footprint position and ACL orientation between ACL-ruptured and ACL-intact knees has not been reported in the literature.

HYPOTHESIS

The femoral ACL footprint position and ACL orientation vary significantly between ACL-ruptured and matched control ACL-intact knees.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance images of the knees of 90 patients with an ACL rupture and 90 matched control participants who had a noncontact knee injury without an ACL rupture were used to create 3-dimensional models of the femur and tibia. The ACL footprints were outlined on each model, and their positions (normalized to the lateral condyle width) as well as ACL orientations were measured with an anatomic coordinate system.

RESULTS

The femoral ACL footprint in patients with an ACL rupture was located at 36.6% posterior and 11.2% distal to the flexion-extension axis (FEA). The ACL orientation was 46.9° in the sagittal plane, 70.3° in the coronal plane, and 20.8° in the transverse plane. The ACL-ruptured group demonstrated a femoral ACL footprint position that was 11.0% more posterior and 7.7% more proximal than that of the control group (all P < .01). The same patients also exhibited 5.7° lower sagittal elevation, 3.1° higher coronal plane elevation, and 7.9° lower transverse plane deviation (all P < .01). The optimal cutoff value of the femoral ACL footprint position to prevent an ACL rupture was at 30% posterior and 12% distal to the FEA.

CONCLUSION

The ACL femoral footprint position might be a predisposing factor to an ACL rupture. Patients with a >30% posterior and <12% distal position of the femoral ACL footprint from the FEA might have a 51.2-times increased risk of an ACL rupture.

Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft

PURPOSE

Newer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral-tibial fixation methods.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007-2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral-tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral-tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral-tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory-interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference-interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory-combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin-interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin-interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65) and interference-interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) methods compared to the suspensory-interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin-interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37-3.32) and suspensory-combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.69) methods compared to suspensory-interference.

CONCLUSIONS

ACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Effect of Femoral Tunnel Position on Stability and Clinical Outcomes After Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Outside-In Technique

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of the femoral tunnel location in the femoral footprint of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) on postoperative knee stability and clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using the outside-in technique.

METHODS

From December 2012 to August 2014, ACLR was performed using the outside-in technique in 137 patients. Among these patients, those who had a follow-up period of over 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 102 patients met the inclusion criteria. The relative location of the femoral tunnel in the lateral condyle was evaluated as a percentage using the standardized grid system on a 3-dimensional computed tomography image. Each patient was then classified into the anterior group, center group (anteroposterior plane, 29.3% ± 3.5%), or posterior group depending on the location of the femoral tunnel. Knee laxity was evaluated using a GNRB knee arthrometer, stress radiography, and the pivot-shift test. From a clinical perspective, patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form and Lysholm knee score) were then evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 102 patients, 31 (30.4%) were assigned to the anterior group, 46 (45.1%) were assigned to the center group, and 25 (24.5%) were assigned to the posterior group. Postoperative side-to-side differences, which were measured using stress radiographs and the GNRB arthrometer, were significantly smaller in the posterior group (1.7 ± 0.6 mm and 1.5 ± 0.5 mm, respectively) than in the center group (2.3 ± 0.9 mm and 2.2 ± 2.8 mm, respectively) and anterior group (2.4 ± 0.7 mm and 2.4 ± 1.3 mm, respectively) (P = .002 for stress radiography and P = .002 for GNRB arthrometer). No significant between-group differences were observed in the pivot-shift test results and patient-reported outcomes among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The location of the femoral tunnel in the anatomic ACL footprint did not affect postoperative stability and clinical outcomes in the case of ACLR using the outside-in technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Effects of Anteromedial Portal versus Transtibial ACL Tunnel Preparation on Contact Characteristics of the Graft and the Tibial Tunnel Aperture

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the tibial tunnel aperture contact characteristics simulating an anteromedial and transtibial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tunnel preparation.

Methods

Seven matched pairs of cadaveric knees were tested. From each knee, a 10-mm quadriceps ACL graft was prepared. The native ACL was arthroscopically removed and tibial tunnels were drilled. In one knee, a transtibial technique was performed with femoral tunnel drilling approached through the tibial tunnel. For the anteromedial technique on the contralateral knee, the posterior tibial tunnel was chamfered with a rasp. The knees were then disarticulated and tibial tunnel aperture geometry was measured. A pressure sensor was placed between the graft and the posterior aspect of the tibial tunnel and the graft was secured with an interference screw. Contact force, contact area, contact pressure, peak contact pressure, hysteresis and stiffness were measured at cyclic loads of 50 N, 100 N, 150 N, and 200 N.

Results

Tibial tunnel aperture area, diameter and deviation from a circle were significantly larger with the transtibial technique (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in hysteresis, stiffness, contact area, contact force and mean contact pressure. The peak contact pressure between the ACL graft and the tibial tunnel was significantly higher with the anteromedial technique for 100 N (p = 0.04), 150 N (p = 0.01), and 200 N (p = 0.002) cyclic loading.

Conclusions

Increased peak contact pressure on the graft at the tibial aperture with the anteromedial technique may increase the stress on the graft and possibly lead to failure following ACL reconstruction.

Anteromedial Portal Drilling Yielded Better Survivorship of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions When Comparing Recent Versus Early Surgeries With This Technique

PURPOSE

To compare anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral drilling hole techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register, comparing revision rates and clinical outcomes from 2 time periods, 2007 to 2010 and 2012 to 2015.

METHODS

A total of 8,386 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were registered between January 2007 to December 2010 and 8,818 in the period January 2012 to December 2015. Revision ACL was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the objective and subjective clinical outcomes. Crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The adjusted RR for revision surgery in the AM (2007-10) group compared with the TT (2007-10) group was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.78; P < .05), but when comparing the AM (2012-15) group with TT (2012-15) group, the RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.68-1.45; P = .96). One-year postoperative objective stability testing showed an RR = 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.60; P < .01) for rotational stability and an RR = 1.37 (95% CI, 0.99-1.89; P < .01) for sagittal stability when comparing AM (2007-10) to TT (2007-10). No significant difference in objective stability was found in the more recent period. Lastly, comparing the subjective scores, the AM (2012-15) had a significantly higher Tegner score 1 year postoperatively compared with the TT-group (2012-15).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found an increased RR of revision anterior cruciate ligament and rotational and sagittal instability 1 year postoperatively for the AM technique in the period from 2007 to 2010. However, there was no significant difference in revision surgery and objective measures between the techniques from 2012 to 2015. Nevertheless, a higher activity level was found in the AM group. The results could indicate that the results found in the period 2007 to 2010 may have been caused by a learning curve when introducing a new and more complex procedure (AM).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Transportal central femoral tunnel placement has a significantly higher revision rate than transtibial AM femoral tunnel placement in hamstring ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

It is proposed that central femoral ACL graft placement better controls rotational stability. This study evaluates the consequence of changing the femoral tunnel position from the AM position drilled transtibially to the central position drilled transportally. The difference in ACL graft failure is reported.

METHODS

This prospective consecutive patient single surgeon study compares the revision rates of 1016 transtibial hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 6-15 years with 464 transportal hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 2-6 years. Sex, age, graft size, time to surgery, meniscal repair and meniscectomy data were evaluated as contributing factors for ACL graft failure to enable a multivariate analysis. To adjust for the variable follow-up a multivariate hazard ratio, failure per 100 graft years and Kaplan-Meier survivorship was determined.

RESULTS

With transtibial ACLR 52/1016 failed (5.1%). With transportal ACLR 32/464 failed (6.9%). Significant differences between transportal and transtibial ACLR were seen for graft diameter, time to surgery, medial meniscal repair rates and meniscal tissue remaining after meniscectomy. Adjusting for these the multivariate hazard ratio was 2.3 times higher in the transportal group (p = 0.001). Central tunnel placement resulted in a significantly 3.5 times higher revision rate compared to an anteromedial tunnel placement per 100 graft years (p = 0.001). Five year survival was 980/1016 (96.5%) for transtibial versus 119/131 (90.5%) for transportal. Transportal ACLR also showed a significantly higher earlier failure rate with 20/32 (61%) of the transportal failing in the first year compared with 14/52 (27%) for transtibial. (p = 0.001.) CONCLUSION: Transportal central femoral tunnel ACLR has a higher failure rate and earlier failure than transtibial AM femoral tunnel ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II-prospective comparative study.

Femoral Tunnel Drilling Method: Risk of Reoperation and Revision After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be created by the transtibial (TT) or tibial-independent (TI) methods. An anatomically located femoral tunnel can be more consistently achieved by TI methods, which include the anteromedial portal and lateral (outside-in, retrodrill) techniques. Nonanatomic graft placement in ACLR can result in postoperative instability and meniscal or chondral injury. An anatomically located graft is subjected to higher postoperative physiologic forces than one placed nonanatomically.

PURPOSE

To examine isolated primary ACLR and determine the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation based on femoral tunnel drilling method.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

The ACLR registry of an integrated US health care system was used to identify primary isolated unilateral ACLRs from 2009 to 2014. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate risk for aseptic revision for graft failure and aseptic reoperation for meniscal or chondral injury according to femoral tunnel drilling method: TI versus TT. Models included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, graft type, and femoral fixation type as covariates.

RESULTS

The cohort included 19,059 patients with primary ACLR. The mean age was 28.9 years (SD, 11.5), 6991 patients (36.8%) were younger than 22 years, 11,795 patients (61.9%) were male, 7648 patients (40.1%) had a BMI less than 25 kg/m², 8913 patients (46.8%) were white, and 7357 patients (38.6%) received an allograft. Median follow-up was 2.30 years (interquartile range, 1.08-3.77). TI techniques were used for 12,342 (64.8%) of the ACLRs, and the TT method was used for 6717 (35.2%). Use of TI techniques increased from 33.6% of all ACLRs in 2009 to 83.4% in 2014. After adjustment for covariates, the TI group had a higher risk for aseptic revision than the TT group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56), and this risk was 1.41 times higher in patients younger than 22 years specifically. The 5-year cumulative reoperation probability was lower in the TI group (4.50%; 95% CI, 3.78%-5.36%) compared with the TT group (5.06%; 95% CI, 4.31-5.94%). After adjustment for the covariates, no difference in risk for aseptic reoperation was observed (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85-1.39).

CONCLUSION

In the largest known study of its type examining femoral tunnel drilling method for primary ACLR, after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, race, graft type, and femoral fixation, TI techniques were found to carry higher risk of aseptic revision compared with the TT method, while no difference was observed in risk for aseptic reoperation.

Differences between traumatic and non-traumatic causes of ACL revision surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and classify causes for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure. It was hypothesized that specific technical and biological reconstruction aspects would differ when comparing traumatic and non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients who experienced ACL reconstruction failure and underwent revision between 2009 and 2014 were analyzed. Based on a systematic failure analysis, including evaluation of technical information on primary ACL reconstruction and radiological assessment of tunnel positions, causes were classified into traumatic and non-traumatic mechanisms of failure; non-traumatic mechanisms were further sub-divided into technical and biologic causes. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and chi-squared tests were performed to determine differences between groups based on various factors including graft choice, fixation technique, technique of femoral tunnel positioning, tunnel malpositioning, and time to revision.

RESULTS

Non-traumatic, i.e., technical, and traumatic mechanisms of ACL reconstruction failure were found in 64.5 and 29.1% of patients, respectively. Biological failure was found only in 6.4% of patients. Non-anatomical femoral tunnel positioning was found the most common cause (83.1%) for technical reconstruction failure followed by non-anatomical tibial tunnel positioning (45.1%). There were strong correlations between non-traumatic technical failure and femoral tunnel malpositioning, transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques, femoral transfixation techniques as well as earlier graft failure (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Technical causes, particularly tunnel malpositioning, were significantly correlated with increased incidence of non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failure. Transtibial femoral tunnel positioning techniques and femoral transfixation techniques, showed an increased incidence of non-traumatic, earlier graft failure.

The role of muscle strength on tendon adaptability in old age

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine: (1) the relationship between ankle plantarflexor muscle strength and Achilles tendon (AT) biomechanical properties in older female adults, and (2) whether muscle strength asymmetries between the individually dominant and non-dominant legs in the above subject group were accompanied by inter-limb AT size differences.

METHODS

The maximal generated AT force, AT stiffness, AT Young's modulus, and AT cross-sectional area (CSA) along its length were determined for both legs in 30 women (65 ± 7 years) using dynamometry, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

No between-leg differences in triceps surae muscle strength were identified between dominant (2798 ± 566 N) and non-dominant limb (2667 ± 512 N). The AT CSA increased gradually in the proximo-distal direction, with no differences between the legs. There was a significant correlation (P < 0.05) of maximal AT force with AT stiffness (r = 0.500) and Young's modulus (r = 0.414), but only a tendency with the mean AT CSA. However, region-specific analysis revealed a significant relationship between maximal AT force and the proximal part of the AT, indicating that this region is more likely to display morphological adaptations following an increase in muscle strength in older adults.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that maximal force-generation capabilities play a more important role in the variation of AT stiffness and material properties than in tendon CSA, suggesting that exercise-induced increases in muscle strength in older adults may lead to changes in tendon stiffness foremost due to alterations in material rather than in its size.

[Anatomical study of anterior cruciate ligament and its effect on reconstruction technique]

Objective

To summarize the current research progress of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy, and discuss its effect on the reconstruction technique.

Methods

The literature concerning ACL anatomy and reconstruction at home and abroad was extensively reviewed and summarized.

Results

The anatomy and morphology of ACL has gained new recognition in recent years, and the "Ribbon-like" ACL has gradually been paid attention to by researchers. In present researches, it seems the "Ribbon-like" anatomy theory has advantages in theory when compared with the previous anatomy theory. It is more in line with the anatomy and isometric reconstruction.

Conclusion

The understanding of ACL anatomy guided the development of ACL reconstruction. The "Ribbon-like" ACL anatomy theory is the different understanding of the anatomy theory, which remains controversy. The "Ribbon-like" reconstruction maybe has more advantages in theory, but further study is needed.

Peak stresses shift from femoral tunnel aperture to tibial tunnel aperture in lateral tibial tunnel ACL reconstructions: a 3D graft-bending angle measurement and finite-element analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of tibial tunnel orientation on graft-bending angle and stress distribution in the ACL graft.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric knees were scanned in extension, 45°, 90°, and full flexion. 3D reconstructions with anatomically placed anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts were constructed with Mimics 14.12^®. 3D graft-bending angles were measured for classic medial tibial tunnels (MTT) and lateral tibial tunnels (LTT) with different drill-guide angles (DGA) (45°, 55°, 65°, and 75°). A pivot shift was performed on 1 knee in a finite-element analysis. The peak stresses in the graft were calculated for eight different tibial tunnel orientations.

RESULTS

In a classic anatomical ACL repair, the largest graft-bending angle and peak stresses are seen at the femoral tunnel aperture. The use of a different DGA at the tibial side does not change the graft-bending angle at the femoral side or magnitude of peak stresses significantly. When using LTT, the largest graft-bending angles and peak stresses are seen at the tibial tunnel aperture.

CONCLUSION

In a classic anatomical ACL repair, peak stresses in the ACL graft are found at the femoral tunnel aperture. When an LTT is used, peak stresses are similar compared to classic ACL repairs, but the location of the peak stress will shift from the femoral tunnel aperture towards the tibial tunnel aperture.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

the risk of graft rupture is similar for both MTTs and LTTs, but the location of graft rupture changes from the femoral tunnel aperture towards the tibial tunnel aperture, respectively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Increased odds of patient-reported success at 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients without cartilage lesions: a cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register

PURPOSE

To investigate whether the surgical technique of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the visualization of anatomic surgical factors and the presence or absence of concomitant injuries at primary ACL reconstruction are able to predict patient-reported success and failure. The hypothesis of this study was that anatomic single-bundle surgical procedures would be predictive of patient-reported success.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register during the period of 1 January 2005 through 31 December 2014. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendons were included. Details on surgical technique were collected using an online questionnaire comprising essential anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist items, defined as the utilization of accessory medial portal drilling, anatomic tunnel placement, the visualization of insertion sites and pertinent landmarks. A univariate logistic regression model adjusted for age and gender was used to determine predictors of patient-reported success and failure, i.e. 20th and 80th percentile, respectively, in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), 2 years after ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

In the 6889 included patients, the surgical technique used for single-bundle ACL reconstruction did not predict the predefined patient-reported success or patient-reported failure in the KOOS₄. Patient-reported success was predicted by the absence of concomitant injury to the meniscus (OR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.72-0.92], p = 0.001) and articular cartilage (OR = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.61-0.81], p < 0.001). Patient-reported failure was predicted by the presence of a concomitant injury to the articular cartilage (OR = 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.44], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgical techniques used in primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction did not predict the KOOS 2 years after the reconstruction. However, the absence of concomitant injuries at index surgery predicted patient-reported success in the KOOS. The results provide further evidence that concomitant injuries at ACL reconstruction affect subjective knee function and a detailed knowledge of the treatment of these concomitant injuries is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level III.

High non-anatomic tunnel position rates in ACL reconstruction failure using both transtibial and anteromedial tunnel drilling techniques

INTRODUCTION

Although it is well known from cadaveric and biomechanical studies that transtibial femoral tunnel (TT) positioning techniques are associated with non-anatomic tunnel positions, controversial data exist as so far no clinical differences could have been found, comparing transtibial with anteromedial techniques (AM). The purpose of the study was to analyze if graft failure following TT ACL reconstruction was more commonly associated with non-anatomic tunnel position in comparison with the AM technique. We hypothesized that, compared to AM techniques, non-anatomic tunnel positions correlate with TT tunnel positioning techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 147 cases of ACL revision surgery were analyzed retrospectively. Primary ACL reconstructions were analyzed regarding the femoral tunnel drilling technique. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were determined on CT scans using validated radiographic measurement methods. Correlation analysis was performed to determine differences between TT and AM techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 101 cases were included, of whom 64 (63.4%) underwent the TT technique and 37 (36.6%) the AM technique for primary ACL reconstruction. Non-anatomic femoral tunnel positions were found in 77.2% and non-anatomical tibial tunnel positions in 40.1%. No correlations were found comparing tunnel positions in TT and AM techniques, revealing non-anatomic femoral tunnel positions in 79.7 and 73% and non-anatomic tibial tunnel positions in 43.7 and 35.1%, respectively (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable rates of non-anatomic femoral and tibial tunnel positions were found in ACL revisions with both transtibial and anteromedial femoral drilling techniques. Despite the potential of placing tunnels more anatomically using an additional AM portal, this technique does not ensure anatomic tunnel positioning. Consequently, the data highlight the importance of anatomic tunnel positioning in primary ACL reconstruction, regardless of the applied drilling technique.

Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Portal ACL Reconstruction: Is a Hybrid Approach the Best?

BACKGROUND

Improved biomechanical and clinical outcomes are seen when the femoral tunnels of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are placed in the center of the femoral insertion. The transtibial (TT) technique has been shown to be less capable of this than an anteromedial (AM) portal approach but is more familiar to surgeons and less technically challenging. A hybrid transtibial (HTT) technique using medial portal guidance of a transtibial guide wire without knee hyperflexion may offer anatomic tunnel placement while maintaining the relative ease of a TT technique.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the anatomic and biomechanical performance of the HTT technique compared with TT and AM approaches.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Thirty-six paired, fresh-frozen human knees were used. Twenty-four knees (12 pairs) underwent all 3 techniques (TT, AM, HTT) for femoral tunnel placement, with direct measurement of femoral insertional overlap and femoral tunnel length. The remaining 12 knees (6 pairs) underwent completed reconstructions to evaluate graft anisometry and tunnel orientation, with each technique performed in 4 specimens and tested using motion sensors with a quad-load induced model. Graft length changes and graft/femoral tunnel angle were measured at varying degrees of flexion.

RESULTS

Percentage overlap of the femoral insertion averaged 37.0% ± 28.6% for TT, 93.9% ± 5.6% for HTT, and 79.7% ± 7.7% for AM, with HTT significantly greater than both TT (P = .007) and AM (P = .001) approaches. Graft length change during knee flexion (anisometry) was 30.1% for HTT, 12.8% for AM, and 8.5% for TT. When compared with the TT approach, HTT constructs exhibited comparable graft-femoral tunnel angulation (TT, 150° ± 3° vs HTT, 142° ± 2.3°; P < .001) and length (TT, 42.6 ± 2.8 mm vs HTT, 38.5 ± 2.0 mm; P = .12), while AM portal tunnels were significantly shorter (31.6 ± 1.6 mm; P = .001) and more angulated (121° ± 6.5°; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The HTT technique avoids hyperflexion and maintains femoral tunnel orientation and length, similar to the TT technique, but simultaneously achieves anatomic graft positioning.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The HTT technique offers an anatomic alternative to an AM portal approach while maintaining the technical advantages of a traditional TT reconstruction.

In Vivo Analysis of Dynamic Graft Bending Angle in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knees During Downward Running and Level Walking: Comparison of Flexible and Rigid Drills for Transportal Technique

PURPOSE

To determine the in vivo dynamic graft bending angle (GBA) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-reconstructed knees, correlate the angle to tunnel positions and tunnel widening, and evaluate the effects of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques on GBA.

METHODS

Patients with an isolated ACL injury undergoing reconstruction from 2011 to 2012 were included. Transportal techniques were used to create femoral tunnels. Tunnel locations were determined by 3-dimensional computed tomography. Tibiofemoral kinematics during treadmill walking and running were assessed by dynamic stereo x-ray analysis 6 months and 2 years postoperatively. The GBA was calculated from the 3-dimensional angle between the graft and femoral tunnel vectors on each motion frame. The cross-sectional areas of femoral tunnels were measured at 6 months and compared with the initial size to assess tunnel widening.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients were included. Use of flexible drills resulted in significantly higher GBAs during walking (80.6° ± 7.8°, P < .001) and running (80.5° ± 9.0°, P = .025) than rigid drills (walking, 67.5° ± 9.3°; running, 74.1° ± 9.6°). Their use led to greater tunnel widening of 113.9% ± 17.6%, as compared with 97.7% ± 17.5% for rigid drills (P = .003). The femoral and tibial apertures were located in similar anatomic positions in both groups, but the femoral tunnel exits were located more anteriorly (P < .001) in the flexible drill group. A higher GBA was highly correlated with anterior location of femoral exits (r = 0.63, P < .001) and moderately correlated with greater tunnel widening (r = 0.48, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

High GBAs were identified during dynamic activities after anatomic ACL reconstruction with a transportal femoral tunnel drilling technique. The GBA was greater when flexible drills were used. The high bending angle resulted from the more anterior location of the femoral tunnel exits, and it correlated with early bone tunnel widening at 6 months. These results suggest that a high GBA may increase stress at the bone-graft interface and contribute to greater tunnel widening after anatomic ACL reconstruction, although the clinical impact should be further investigated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Outcomes After 1-Stage Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is becoming increasingly common as the number of primary ACLR cases continues to rise. Despite this, there are limited data on the outcomes of revision ACLR and even less information specifically addressing the differences in 1-stage revision reconstruction versus those performed in a 2-stage fashion after primary reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes, patient satisfaction, and failure rates of 1-stage versus 2-stage revision ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

All patients who underwent revision ACLR between 2010 and 2014 by a single surgeon were collected, and skeletally mature patients over the age of 17 years were included. Patients were excluded if they were skeletally immature; had a previous intra-articular infection in the ipsilateral knee; underwent a prior alignment correction procedure, cartilage repair or transplant procedure, or meniscal allograft transplantation; or had an intra-articular fracture. An ipsilateral or contralateral bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft was the graft of choice. A BPTB allograft was considered for patients aged ≥50 years, for any patient with an insufficient ipsilateral or contralateral patellar tendon, or for those who chose not to have the contralateral patellar tendon graft harvested. Patients completed a subjective questionnaire preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of all knees were performed preoperatively to assess for associated injuries and to evaluate the ACLR tunnel size and location. Patients with malpositioned tunnels that would critically overlap with an anatomically placed tunnel or those with tunnels ≥14 mm in size underwent bone grafting.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. There were 39 patients in the 1-stage revision surgery group (19 male, 20 female) and 49 patients in the 2-stage revision surgery group who underwent tunnel bone grafting first (27 male, 22 female). In both groups, the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scale scores significantly improved from preoperatively to postoperatively. There was no significant difference in the SF-12 Mental Component Summary score before and after surgery in either group. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in failure rates or other demographic data between the groups. We observed 4 failures in the 1-stage reconstruction group (10.3%) and 3 failures in the 2-stage reconstruction group (6.1%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, objective outcomes and subjective patient scores and satisfaction were not significantly different between 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs. Both groups had significantly improved objective outcomes and patient subjective outcomes without notable differences in failure rates. Further longitudinal studies comparing 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs over a longer time frame are recommended.

Comparative evaluation of the results of three techniques in the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, with a minimum follow-up of two years

Objective

To compare the clinical results of the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament by transtibial, transportal, and outside-in techniques.

Methods

This was a retrospective study on 90 patients (ACL reconstruction with autologous flexor tendons) operated between August 2009 and June 2012, by the medial transportal (30), transtibial (30), and “outside-in” (30) techniques. The following parameters were assessed: objective and subjective IKDC, Lysholm, KT1000, Lachman test, Pivot-Shift and anterior drawer test.

Results

On physical examination, the Lachman test and Pivot-Shift indicated a slight superiority of the outside-in technique, but without statistical significance (p = 0.132 and p = 0.186 respectively). The anterior drawer, KT1000, subjective IKDC, Lysholm, and objective IKDC tests showed similar results in the groups studied. A higher number of complications were observed in the medial transportal technique (p = 0.033).

Conclusion

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical results of patients undergoing reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament by transtibial, medial transportal, and outside-in techniques.

Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction via Independent Tunnel Drilling: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Autografts

PURPOSE

To collect the highest level of evidence comparing anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction via independent tunnel drilling using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) and hamstring tendon (HT) autografts in terms of clinical outcome and failure rate.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of clinical trials that randomized patients to ACL reconstruction with either BTB or HT autografts with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Only trials using independent tunnel drilling, including outside-in and anteromedial portal techniques, for both autografts were eligible for inclusion, whereas all transtibial studies were excluded. Study design, demographics, surgical technique, rehabilitation protocol, and clinical outcomes were compiled. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Quality assessment was performed using the Coleman Methodological Scale (CMS).

RESULTS

Six published studies reporting on 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. No study reported a difference in rerupture rate between BTB and HT. BTB-reconstructed knees experienced a greater incidence of anterior knee pain or crepitus in 2/7 trials and radiographic evidence of degenerative change in 3/7 trials. HT-reconstructed knees had increased instrumented laxity in 2/7 trials and less knee flexion strength postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study collects all available Level I and II evidence for anatomic ACL reconstruction using BTB and HT grafts. According to the data presented in these studies, clinical outcome scores and failure rates showed no differences for anatomic reconstruction using either autograft. However, in some studies, BTB-reconstructed knees experienced a greater incidence of anterior knee pain and radiographic evidence of degenerative change, and in others, HT-reconstructed knees had increased laxity and less knee flexion strength. In our opinion, both BTB and HT autografts remain valid options for ACL reconstruction when using anatomic drilling techniques, providing a stable knee with reliable return to activity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Anatomic ACL reconstruction: the normal central tibial footprint position and a standardised technique for measuring tibial tunnel location on 3D CT

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to define the normal ACL central tibial footprint position and describe a standardised technique of measuring tibial tunnel location on 3D CT for anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

The central position of the ACL tibial attachment site was determined on 76 MRI scans of young individuals. The central footprint position was referenced in the anterior-posterior (A-P) and medial-lateral (M-L) planes on a grid system over the widest portion of the proximal tibia. 3D CT images of 26 young individuals had a simulated tibial tunnel centred within the bony landmarks of the ACL footprint, and the same grid system was applied over the widest portion of the proximal tibia. The MRI central footprint position was compared to the 3D CT central footprint position to validate the technique and results.

RESULTS

The median age of the 76 MRI subjects was 24 years, with 32 females and 44 males. The ACL central footprint position was at 39 (±3 %) and 48 (±2 %), in the A-P and M-L planes, respectively. There was no significant difference in this position between sexes. The median age of the 26 CT subjects was 25.5 years, with 10 females and 16 males. The central position of the bony ACL footprint was at 38 (±2 %) and 48 (±2 %), in the A-P and M-L planes, respectively. The MRI and CT central footprint positions were not significantly different in relation to the medial position, but were different in relation to the anterior position (A-P 39 % vs. 38 %, p = 0.01). The absolute difference between the central MRI and CT reference positions was 0.45 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACL's normal central tibial footprint reference position has been defined, and the technique of measuring tibial tunnel location with a standardised grid system is described. This study will assist surgeons in evaluating tibial tunnel position in anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Technique for Arthroscopic-Assisted Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Doubled Tibialis Anterior Tendon

Advances in surgical technique and our knowledge of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy have resulted in a marked increase in options for ACL reconstruction. Currently, patient age and activity level, surgeon preference and experience, and cost are factors influencing the type of reconstruction recommended to address knee instability. We present a simplified transtibial method of ACL reconstruction using a single-bundle, doubled tibialis anterior allograft. This method uses fixation with a suspensory device on the femur and a bio-composite interference screw on the tibia. We recommend this simplified technique for primary ACL reconstruction because it minimizes total steps, thus limiting variance, maximizing efficiency, and reducing potential technical error.

Revision surgery in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 17,682 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between surgical variables and the risk of revision surgery after ACL reconstruction in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon were included. Follow-up started with primary ACL reconstruction and ended with ACL revision surgery or on 31 December, 2014, whichever occurred first. Details on surgical technique were collected using an online questionnaire. All group comparisons were made in relation to an "anatomic" reference group, comprised of essential AARSC items, defined as utilization of accessory medial portal drilling, anatomic tunnel placement, visualization of insertion sites and pertinent landmarks. Study end-point was revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 108 surgeons (61.7%) replied to the questionnaire. A total of 17,682 patients were included [n = 10,013 males (56.6%) and 7669 females (43.4%)]. The overall revision rate was 3.1%. Older age as well as cartilage injury evident at index surgery was associated with a decreased risk of revision surgery. The group using transtibial drilling and non-anatomic bone tunnel placement was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery [HR 0.694 (95% CI 0.490-0.984); P = 0.041] compared with the anatomic reference group. The anatomic reference group showed no difference in risk of revision surgery compared with the transtibial drilling groups with partial anatomic [HR 0.759 (95% CI 0.548-1.051), n.s.] and anatomic tunnel placement [HR 0.944 (95% CI 0.718-1.241), n.s.]. The anatomic reference group showed a decreased risk of revision surgery compared with the transportal drilling group with anatomic placement [HR 1.310 (95% CI 1.047-1.640); P = 0.018].

CONCLUSION

Non-anatomic bone tunnel placement via transtibial drilling resulted in the lowest risk of revision surgery after ACL reconstruction. The risk of revision surgery increased when using transportal drilling. Performing anatomic ACL reconstruction utilizing eight selected essential items from the AARSC lowered the risk of revision surgery associated with transportal drilling and anatomic bone tunnel placement. Detailed knowledge of surgical technique using the AARSC predicts the risk of ACL revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Single-Bundle Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Surgical Technique Pearls and Pitfalls

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures are some of the most common sports-related injuries. Treatment of these injuries with ACL reconstruction has evolved over the last several decades. Anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction offers an accurate and reproducible method to reproduce native knee anatomy, restore knee kinematics, and ultimately restore function and decrease long-term degenerative effects. The importance of adequate arthroscopic visualization and a thorough understanding of the native anatomic ACL landmarks are discussed in this article. Furthermore, surgical technique, pearls, pitfalls, potential complications, rehabilitation, and outcomes are reviewed.

TRANSTIBIAL VERSUS ANTEROMEDIAL PORTAL TECHNIQUES IN ACL RECONSTRUCTION

Abstract Introduction: Although the results of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are well documented in many studies, with good to excellent outcomes in most cases, some issues like tunnel positioning are still discussed and studied. Objective: To compare the objective and subjective clinical outcomes of ACL reconstruction using the transtibial and anteromedial portal techniques. Methods: Prospective randomized study of 80 patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by the same surgeon, with 40 patients operated by the transtibial technique and 40 by anteromedial portal technique. The patients, 34 in the transtibial group and 37 in the anteromedial portal group (nine dropouts), were reassessed during a 2-year follow-up period. The clinical assessment consisted of physical examination, KT-1000TM evaluation, Lysholm score, and objective and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee - IKDC scores. Results: Regarding the Lachman and pivot shift tests, we observed more cases of instability in the transtibial group, but with no statistical significance (p=0.300 and p=0.634, respectively). Regarding the anterior drawer test, the groups presented similar results (p=0.977). Regarding KT-1000TM evaluation, the mean results were 1.44 for the transtibial group and 1.23 for the anteromedial portal group, with no statistical significance (p=0.548). We separated the objective IKDC scores into two groups: Group 1, IKDC A, and Group 2, IKDC B, C, or D, with no statistical significance (p=0.208). Concerning the Lysholm score, the transtibial group had a mean score of 91.32, and the anteromedial portal group had a mean score of 92.81. The mean subjective IKDC scores were 90.65 for the transtibial group and 92.65 for the anteromedial portal group. Three re-ruptures were encountered in the transtibial group and three in the anteromedial portal group. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the subjective and objective clinical assessments among patients submitted to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the transtibial or anteromedial portal techniques.

The anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament and its relevance to the technique of reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly performed and has been for many years. Despite this, the technical details related to ACL anatomy, such as tunnel placement, are still a topic for debate. In this paper, we introduce the flat ribbon concept of the anatomy of the ACL, and its relevance to clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1020–6.