Modified transtibial versus anteromedial portal techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, a comparative study

The method of femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the return to sport rate

Background

Limited evidence is available comparing the modified transtibial (MTT) and transportal (TP) techniques in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and their impact on returning to sports participation. The objective was to analyze the outcomes after arthroscopic reconstruction of the ACL in recreational athletes with a 2-year postoperative follow-up, comparing the MTT and TP techniques, based on the method used to drill the femoral tunnel.

Hypotesis

The rate of return to sport would be comparable regardless of the surgical technique used.

Material and methods

A retrospective study was conducted with 66 patients who underwent arthroscopic monofascicular ACL reconstruction between September 2016 and March 2020. Patients aged between 16 and 50 years old, recreational athletes at Tegner levels 6 and 7, with a 2-year follow-up were included. Groups were established for comparative analysis (MTT vs TP) based on the method for drilling the femoral tunnel. The main outcome variable was the return to sport at the same level. Secondary variables included patient satisfaction evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and knee function according to the Lysholm scale.

Results

At 2 years of postoperative follow-up, the return to sport rate was 30.3 % in the MTT group and 33.3 % in the TP group (p = 0.791). There were no significant differences between both groups in patient satisfaction (p = 0.664) and knee function (p = 0.113).

Conclusion

Drilling the femoral tunnel with the MTT and TP techniques did not influence the rate of return to sport, patient satisfaction, and knee function in recreational athletes with 2 years of postoperative follow-up.

Level of evidence

III.

Anteromedial Portal Technique, but Not Outside-in Technique, Is Superior to Standard Transtibial Technique in Knee Stability and Functional Recovery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative outcomes of 4 different femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing any 2 or more of the following femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: standard transtibial (sTT), anteromedial portal (AMP), outside-in (OI), or modified transtibial (mTT) technique. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess postoperative stability and functional recovery in terms of the side-to-side difference (measured by arthrometry), Lachman test, pivot-shift test, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and objective scores, Lysholm score, and Tegner score. The Fisher exact probability test and χ2 test were used to compare the incidences of infection and graft rupture, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 20 randomized controlled trials involving 1,515 patients. The AMP technique showed a lower side-to-side difference (standardized mean difference, -0.33; 95% credible interval [CrI], -0.53 to -0.12), higher negative rate on the pivot-shift test (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CrI, 1.38 to 3.44), and higher International Knee Documentation Committee objective score (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% CrI, 1.42 to 7.82) than the sTT technique. However, knee stability and functional outcomes did not differ significantly between the OI and sTT techniques. Safety outcomes of the mTT technique were unavailable. The incidence of graft rupture was 5.20% for the OI technique, 2.27% for the AMP technique, and 1.51% for the sTT technique. The OI technique had a significantly higher incidence of graft rupture than the sTT technique (χ2 = 4.421, P = .035). No significant difference in the incidence of infection was found between the sTT, AMP, and OI techniques (P = .281).

CONCLUSIONS

The AMP technique, but not the OI technique, was superior to the sTT technique in knee stability and functional recovery. The OI technique had a higher incidence of graft rupture than the sTT technique. There was no significant difference between the AMP and OI techniques or between the mTT technique and any other femoral drilling technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Clinical outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with modified transtibial and anteromedial portal

Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction is the current standard care of treatment for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Modified transtibial (mTT) and anteromedial portal (AMP) techniques aim at the anatomical placement of femoral tunnel. Controversy existed in the literature with regard to the outcome of these techniques. Hence, we designed a retrospective comparative study to analyse the clinical and functional outcomes of mTT and AMP techniques. We hypothesized that there would be no difference between the clinical and functional outcomes in mTT and AMP techniques. This retrospective observational study was conducted in consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using semitendinosus-gracilis (STG) quadrupled graft in our tertiary care centre with a minimum follow-up of two years. Out of 69 patients, 37 had undergone ACL reconstruction by mTT technique and remaining by AMP technique. All the patients were assessed clinically by anterior drawer, Lachman's, pivot shift and single-legged hop test. Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation score were used for the functional status. Knee instability was assessed objectively by KT-1000 arthrometer. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline demographic characteristics between mTT and AMP groups. At the end of 2 years, no statistically significant difference was noted in the anterior drawer and Lachman's test. Though not significant, IKDC scores and Lysholm's scores showed a better outcome in the AMP group when compared to the mTT group. AMP group showed significantly better outcome with KT-1000 arthrometer. Based on the results obtained, we presume that overall both mTT and AMP have similar functional outcome. However, as AMP technique offers significantly improved subjective rotational stability on pivot shift test, better hop limb symmetry index and KT 1000 readings compared to mTT, we suggest AMP over mTT.

Analysis the Lateral Tunnel Position of the Bone Graft and Regeneration of Femur by CT Tunnel Localization

Objective: To analyze, in a retrospective study, the lateral tunnel position of the graft femur by CT after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction via the anteromedial (AM) approach and the tunnel angle shown on X-ray. Methods and Materials: 60 patients undergoing arthroscopic ACL reconstruction via AM approach with 4 femoral hamstring tendon grafts were investigated from October 2019 to October 2021. Postoperative orthogonal x-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained, and the position of the femoral tunnel obtained after CT reconstruction was correlated with the Bernard-Hertel grid. The angle of the resulting femoral tunnel on the orthogonal x-ray was analyzed against the CT tunnel position. Results: In the study, the anterior–posterior orientation was forward (P = 0.001) and the high-low orientation was similar (taken as 20%, P = 0.066) or slightly higher (taken as 21%, P = 0.025) compared to the AM beam localization in the two-beam reconstruction. Overall, the femoral tunnel angle on non-weight-bearing orthogonal x-ray was negatively correlated with the anterior–posterior (AP) position of the femoral tunnel centre as shown on CT (P = 0.004, r =−0.368) and positively, but weakly, correlated with the high-low (HL) position (P = 0.049, r = 0.254). Conclusion: Non-weight-bearing orthogonal X-rays only can make approximate predictions about the distribution of anatomical reconstruction, I.D.E.A.L reconstruction.

Similar outcomes and satisfaction after transtibial versus transportal femoral drilling for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young adult recreational athletes

PURPOSE

Controversy continues regarding whether the transtibial (TT) and transportal (TP) methods for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction provide similar or different outcomes, and the evidence on patient satisfaction is very limited. The objective of this study was to compare functional outcomes and patient satisfaction in young adult recreational athletes who underwent arthroscopic hamstring ACL reconstruction using either the TT or the TP femoral tunnel drilling method.

METHODS

A nonrandomized prospective study was designed to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic hamstring ACL reconstruction using TT or TP method. Functional outcome was assessed with the Lyshom score, and patient satisfaction with a 5-point Likert scale. Knee stability was measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer.

RESULTS

42 patients in the TT group and 41 in TP group, with age ranged 18-40 years, were compared with a mean follow-up of 42 (range 24-60) months. There were no significant differences between groups in the Lysholm score (n.s.), sport return rate (n.s.) or patient satisfaction with the surgery (n.s.). Satisfaction was only significantly associated with the Lysholm score (OR 1.3; IC 95% 1.06-1.6; p = 0.012), but not with the return to sports (n.s.) or knee anterior laxity (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

This study showed no statistical differences between the TT and the TP method in functional outcomes or patient satisfaction in young adult recreational athletes. In those patients, satisfaction with the surgery was not influenced by the return to sport activities. This study can guide surgeons in the decision-making for ACL reconstruction in recreational athletes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Transtibial versus independent femoral tunnel drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evaluation of femoral aperture positioning

Background

Femoral tunnel can be drilled through tibial tunnel (TT), or independent of it (TI) by out-in (OI) technique or by anteromedial (AM) technique. No consensus has been reached on which technique achieves more proper femoral aperture position because there have been evolving concepts in the ideal place for femoral aperture placement. This meta-analysis was performed to analyze the current literature comparing femoral aperture placement by TI versus TT techniques in ACL reconstruction.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language literature in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for articles comparing femoral aperture placement by TI versus TT techniques with aperture position assessed by direct measurement or by postoperative imaging, PXR and/or CT and/or MRI.

Results

We included 55 articles with study population of 2401 knees of whom 1252 underwent TI and 1149 underwent TT techniques. The relevant baseline characteristics, whenever compared, were comparable between both groups. There was nonsignificant difference between TI and TT techniques in the distance from aperture center to footprint center and both techniques were unable to accurately recreate the anatomic footprint position. TI technique significantly placed aperture at more posterior position than TT technique. TI technique significantly lowered position of placed aperture perpendicular to Blumensaat’s line (BL) than TT technique, and modifications to TT technique had significant effect on this intervention effect. Regarding sagittal plane aperture placement along both AP anatomical axis and BL, there was nonsignificant difference between both techniques.

Conclusion

Modifications to TT technique could overcome limitations in aperture placement perpendicular to BL. The more anterior placement of femoral aperture by TT technique might be considered, to some extent, a proper position according to recent concept of functional anatomical ACL reconstruction.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03040-5.

Transportal versus all-inside techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Background

Transportal (TP) and all-inside techniques (AIT) are the most commonly used anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction procedures in current clinical practice. However, there is an ongoing debate over which procedure is superior. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications of these two techniques to propose recommendations for future application. Our primary hypothesis was that AIT is a superior ACLR technique compared to TP.

Methods

A systematic literature review, using PRISMA guidelines, was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, up to February 2021 to identify studies focusing on AIT and TP techniques of ACL reconstruction. We excluded animal experiments, cadaveric studies, retrospective studies, case reports, technical notes, and studies without quantitative data. Patients’ characteristics, surgical technical features, along with postoperative follow-up and complications were extracted and reported accordingly. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).

Results

A total of 44 studies were selected for this review, of which four were comparative studies. A total of 923 patients underwent AIT and 1678 patients underwent the TP technique for ACLR. A single semitendinosus graft was commonly used in the AIT compard to combined semitendinosus and gracilis graft in the TP group. The postoperative increase in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, KT-1000, and Short Form-12 (physical and mental) scores were similar in the AIT group and the TP group. Contrastingly, the VAS pain score was significantly lower in the AIT group compared to the TP group. Furthermore, the pooled complication rates from all studies were similar between the two groups (AIT: 54 patients, 8.26% vs. PT: 55 patients, 6.62%). However, the four studies that prospectively compared AIT and TP techniques showed lesser complications in the AIT group than the TP group.

Conclusion

Since the future trend in orthopedic surgery is toward less invasive and patients’ satisfaction with good outcomes, AIT is a good alternative method considering preserving bony tissue and gracilis tendon with less post-operative pain, along with more knee flexor strength and equal outcomes compared to conventional ACL reconstruction surgery.

Level of Evidence II.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-021-02872-x.

Independent Versus Transtibial Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Background:

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed with different techniques for independent and transtibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnels, but there is still no consensus on which approach leads to the best outcome.

Purpose:

To assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted on July 1, 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The influence of different femoral drilling techniques was analyzed through a meta-analysis in terms of patient-reported outcome measure scores, risk of complications, range of motion limitations, graft failure, and differential laxity. Subanalyses were performed to compare the different independent drilling techniques considered. Linear metaregression was performed to evaluate if the year of study publication influenced the results. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines.

Results:

A total of 22 randomized controlled trials including 1658 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm score were higher with the independent drilling approach (mean difference [MD], 1.24 [P = .02] and 0.55 [P = .005], respectively). No difference was documented in terms of the risk of reinjury, but independent drilling led to reduced KT-1000 arthrometer–assessed anterior tibial translation (MD, 0.23; P = .01) and a higher probability of a negative postoperative pivot-shift test finding (risk ratio, 1.13; P = .04). There were no significant differences in IKDC objective or Tegner scores. A P value of .07 was found for the association between the year of the study and IKDC objective scores.

Conclusion:

Independent femoral tunnel drilling provided better results than the TT approach, although the difference was not clinically significant. No difference was observed in the risk of reinjury. Increasingly better results were seen among surgical procedures performed in more recent years. Among the independent drilling options, the anteromedial portal technique seemed to provide the most favorable outcomes. The lack of clinically significant differences and the promising outcomes reported with new modified TT techniques suggest the importance of correct placement, rather than the tunnel drilling approach, to optimize the results of ACL reconstruction.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study compared clinical outcomes obtained after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) techniques, which comprise the conventional transtibial (cTT) and modified transtibial (mTT) techniques. This study included clinical randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective controlled trials with AM and TT techniques from the PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2020. Two independent evaluators verified the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcome measures analysed included the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, side-to-side difference (SSD), Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade and score. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 prospective and retrospective controlled trials were included with a total of 2202 patients. There were 1180 patients and 1022 patients in the AM and TT groups, respectively. Compared to the cTT group, superior postoperative results were observed in the AM group based on the negative rate of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, IKDC grade and score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and SSD (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the AM and mTT groups (p > 0.05). Compared to the conventional TT technique, the AM technique exhibited superior clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the modified TT and AM techniques had comparable results. With neither of the techniques (mTT or AM) producing significantly superior outcomes, surgeons can choose either of them depending on their preferences.

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.

Techniques for Femoral Socket Creation in ACL Reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is common and affects a wide variety of individuals. An ACL reconstruction is the treatment of choice for patients with subjective and objective symptoms of instability and is of particular importance to cutting or pivoting athletes. With many variables involved in ACL reconstruction, femoral tunnel placement has been found to affect clinical outcomes with nonanatomic placement being identified as the most common technical error. Traditionally the femoral tunnel was created through the tibial tunnel or transtibial with the use of a guide and a rigid reaming system. Because of proximal, nonanatomic tunnel placement using the transtibial technique, the use of the anteromedial portal and outside-in drilling techniques has allowed placement of the tunnel over the femoral footprint. In this paper, we discuss the difference between the 3 techniques and the advantages and disadvantages of each. The authors then explore the clinical differences and outcomes in techniques by reviewing the relevant literature.

Graft Inclination Angles in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Vary Depending on Femoral Tunnel Reaming Method: Comparison Among Transtibial, Anteromedial Portal, and Outside-In Retrograde Drilling Techniques

PURPOSE

To compare graft coronal and sagittal inclination angles in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction performed by different femoral tunnel drilling techniques with respect to intact native ACL.

METHODS

In total, 72 patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. The inclusion criteria were complete ACL rupture and patient age between 18 and 55 years. Reconstructions were performed using 4 different femoral tunnel drilling technique: transtibial (TT), anteromedial portal with rigid (AMP-RR) or flexible (AMP-FR) reamer, and outside-in retrograde drilling (OI) techniques. Eighteen patients with intact native ACL were included as controls. Sagittal and coronal graft inclination angles were measured by magnetic resonance imaging 6 months after the procedure by 1 radiologist blinded in regards to the used technique.

RESULTS

OI and AMP-FR techniques allowed for the maintenance of native-like ACL inclination in both the sagittal and coronal planes, whereas TT and AMP-RR increased the sagittal angle by a mean of 9.5° (P < .001) and 6.7° (P = .003), respectively, compared with native ACLs. AMP-RR and TT also showed increased sagittal graft inclination compared with AMP-FR (+6.1°, P = .009 and +9.0°, P < .001, respectively) and OI-drilling techniques (+5.5°, P = .024 and +8.4°, P < .001, respectively). No differences were observed among study groups in terms of coronal graft inclination.

CONCLUSIONS

The study hypothesis was partially confirmed, since OI and AMP-FR techniques, but not AMP-RR, using an independent portal for femoral drilling produce a more anatomic graft inclination on the sagittal plane with respect to TT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, prospective comparative study.