Graft selection in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Background  

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgical reconstruction is performed with the use of an autogenic, allogenic or synthetic graft. The document issued by the Italian National Guidelines System (SNLG, Sistema Nazionale Linee Guida) at the National Institute of Health aims to guide orthopaedic surgeons in selecting the optimal graft for ACL reconstruction using an evidence-based approach.     

Single versus two-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The purpose of this study was to compare single (endoscopic) versus two-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone in a population of young athletes. All patients followed a similar postoperative rehabilitation program. The Lysholm knee score, the International Knee Documentation Committee Score, KT-1000 arthrometric measurements, Lachman tests, pivot shift tests, isokinetic and functional testing, and perioperative complications were used to compare the two techniques. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were also evaluated and compared. Group I comprised 51 patients who underwent two-incision arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. The average age was 19.8 years, with a range of 18 to 22. The average follow-up in this group was 31 months (range, 24 to 43 months). Group II, the endoscopic group, consisted of 31 patients with an average age of 19.4 years (range, 18 to 22). The average follow-up was 25 months (range, 24 to 31 months). There were no significant differences between the two groups using subjective, objective, and functional criteria. There did appear to be a trend toward a residual pivot glide in the endoscopic group, but this did not achieve statistical significance. Radiographic analysis demonstrated an increased incidence of screw divergence in the endoscopic group. Intraoperative complications were more common with the endoscopic method.     

基于Mimics的三维CT重建评估不同技术重建前交叉韧带的骨隧道位置

目的:比较改良经胫骨隧道(modified transtibial,MTT)技术与经前内侧入路(anteromedial portal,AM)技术进行单束前交叉韧带重建的骨隧道定位情况.方法:回顾性分析2017年1月至2020年9月进行单束前交叉韧带重建的78例患者的临床资料.其中39例采用MTT技术重建(MTT组),...     

Femoral and tibial tunnel position using a transtibial drilled anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique

This study evaluates the position of the femoral tunnel, which is achieved using a transtibial, single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique. The radiographs of 50 consecutive, primary single-bundle ACL reconstructed knees using this technique were reviewed. The angle between the femoral tunnel and the apex of the intercondylar notch was recorded. The average angle from the 12-o'clock vertical position to the femoral tunnel was 49 degrees (range, 39 degrees-59.2 degrees; SD = 3.9), corresponding to the 10:20 position on a clock face for a right knee. These results demonstrate that it is technically possible to create an obliquely oriented single-bundle femoral tunnel at approximately the 10:20 position through a tibial tunnel angled approximately 60 degrees from the proximal tibial joint surface. This correlates to a femoral tunnel approximately midway between the anteromedial and posterolateral bundle origins of the ACL.     

由外向内与经前内侧入路法重建前交叉韧带股骨隧道的比较

目的：研究由外向内法（OI）与经前内侧入路法（AM）重建前交叉韧带（ACL）股骨侧隧道相关参数及隧道长度与股骨髁部大小的关系,探寻二者区别。方法取15具新鲜解冻膝关节标本,测量股骨髁部左右径及股骨外侧髁前后径大小,采用自行改进的内钩槽游标卡尺,定位ACL股骨侧止点中心,分别模拟采用OI法与AM法定位股骨外侧壁隧道口点。测量隧道长度、隧道口点与股骨外上髁位置关系。正侧位X线位上股骨隧道与膝关节线、股骨纵轴夹角。结果 OI法股骨隧道长度为（36.9±2.5）mm,AM法为（35.0±2.1）mm,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;OI法与AM法股骨外侧壁隧道口点均位于股骨外上髁近前侧。 OI法较AM法偏近心端分布,但AM法更为集中;股骨髁部越大,隧道长度越长。 OI法较AM法隧道更为垂直。结论采用OI法与AM法均可满足ACL重建术对股骨隧道长度及位置的要求。 OI法相比下更随意,不受屈膝角度的影响。     

经胫骨隧道与前内侧入路建立前交叉韧带股骨隧道的比较研究

目的 比较关节镜下前交叉韧带(ACL)重建术中经胫骨隧道与髌下前内侧入路建立股骨隧道的长度和角度。 方法回顾性分析2000年11月至2009年11月收治的102例ACL重建手术患者资料,其中50例采用经胫骨隧道建立股骨隧道（经胫骨隧道组）：男39例,女11例;年龄15～49岁,平均（27.9±7.6）岁。52例采用经前内侧入路建立股骨隧道（前内侧入路组）：男33例,女19例;年龄15～56岁,平均(30.5±10.7)岁。术中记录股骨隧道长度,术后行膝关节前后位及侧位X线片检查,测量股骨隧道在冠状面与内、外髁连线及矢状面与股骨干轴线的夹角,并进行统计学分析。 结果 经胫骨隧道组股骨隧道的平均长度[（50.9±5.0）mm]长于前内侧入路组[(37.8±4. 7)mm],差异有统计学意义(t=15.083,P=0. 000);经胫骨隧道组冠状面股骨隧道角度(68.6°±7.0°)、矢状面股骨隧道角度(45.1°±8.1°)均大于前内侧入路组(49.8°±7.7°)、33.7°±9.7°),差异均有统计学意义(t=12. 874,P=0. 000;t =5. 877,P=0. 000)。 结论关节镜下ACL重建术中,采用前内侧入路制备的股骨隧道长度短、角度小。     

关节镜下自体与同种异体肌腱重建膝关节前交叉韧带的临床研究

[目的]比较自体与同种异体肌腱关节镜下重建膝关节前交叉韧带(ACL)的临床疗效。[方法]回顾分析了56例ACLⅢ度损伤病人,将其分为2组;A组:自体肌腱移植30例;B组:同种异体肌腱移植26例。两组病人采用相同的手术方法,术后随访25～48个月,平均34.4个月。[结果]理学检查、Lysholm-Tegner和IKDC膝关节综合功能评定及KT2000检测,手术前后两组各项指标差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);但两组间术后各项指标差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]同种异体与自体肌腱重建ACL的疗效相近,是重建ACL良好的移植物。     

Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The ideal graft for use in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction should have structural and biomechanical properties similar to those of the native ligament, permit secure fixation and rapid biologic incorporation, and limit donor site morbidity. Many options have been clinically successful, but the ideal graft remains controversial. Graft choice depends on surgeon experience and preference, tissue availability, patient activity level, comorbidities, prior surgery, and patient preference. Patellar tendon autograft, the most widely used graft source, appears to be associated with an increased incidence of anterior knee pain compared with hamstring autograft. Use of hamstring autograft is increasing. Quadriceps tendon autograft is less popular but has shown excellent clinical results with low morbidity. Improved sterilization techniques have led to increased safety and availability of allograft, although allografts have a slower rate of incorporation than do most types of autograft. No graft has clearly been shown to provide a faster return to play. However, in general, patellar tendon autografts are preferable for high-performance athletes, and hamstring autografts and allografts have some relative advantages for lower-demand individuals. No current indications exist for synthetic ligaments.     

Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Selecting the appropriate graft for ACL reconstruction depends on numerous factors including surgeon philosophy and experience, tissue availability (affected by anatomical anomalies or prior injury or surgery), and patient activity level and desires. Although the patella tendon autograft has the widest experience in the literature, and is probably the most commonly used graft source, this must be tempered with the higher reported incidences of potential morbidity and pitfalls associated with its use. The hamstring tendons are gaining increasing popularity, mostly due to reduced harvest morbidity and improved soft tissue fixation techniques, and many recent studies in the literature report equal results to BTB ACL reconstruction with respect to functional outcome and patient satisfaction. On the other hand, many of these studies report higher degrees of instrument (KT-100) tested laxity for hamstring reconstruction, and some have reported lower returns to preinjury levels of activity. One question that remains to be addressed is how closely objectively measured laxity tests correlate with subjectively assessed outcomes and ability to return to high levels of competitive sports. Allograft use, which decreased in popularity during the 1990s, appears to be undergoing a resurgence, with better sterilization processes and new graft sources (tibialis tendons), leading to increased availability and improved fixation techniques. The benefits of decreased surgical morbidity and easier rehabilitation must be weighed against the potential for greater failure of biologic incorporation, infection, and possibly slower return to activities. In our practice, for high-demand individuals (those playing cutting, pivoting, or jumping sports and skiing) BTB tends to be the graft of choice. For lower demand or older individuals, hamstring reconstructions will be performed. Allograft tissue will be used in older individuals (generally over 45 years old), those with signs of arthritis (and compelling evidence of instability), or those individuals who understand the pros and cons of allograft use fully and do not want their own tissue used.     

Rehabilitation after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Rehabilitation is an important part of therapy in patients who have had arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A well-designed rehabilitation program avoids potential graft damage and speeds up patients' return to their full function level. The course of rehabilitation depends on the type of surgery, mode of fixation and possible co-existing injury to the knee's soft tissues. The rehabilitation program presented here is based on the present-day knowledge of neurophysiological and biomechanical principles and is divided into five phases. In the pre-operative phase (I), the main objective is to prepare patients for surgery in terms of maximum muscle strength and range of motion. It also includes providing full information on the procedure. In the early post-operative phase (II) we are concerned with pain alleviation and reduction of knee edema. After suture removal we begin with soft techniques for the patella and post-operative physical therapy to reduce scarring. In the next post-operative phase (III) patients are able to walk with their full weight on the extremity operated on, and we continue doing exercises that improve flexor/extensor co-contraction. In this phase we also begin with exercises improving the patient's proprioceptive and sensorimotor functions. In the late post-operative phase (IV) we go on with exercises promoting proprioception of both lower extremities with the aim of increasing muscle control of the knee joints. In the convalescent phase (V) patients gradually return to their sports activities.     

Long-term outcomes following single-bundle transtibial arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Purpose

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury has a reported incidence of 3–20 %. PCL reconstruction is aimed at reducing onset of premature articular degeneration and improving function. Numerous operative techniques have been described with varying degrees of result consistency.

Methods

We evaluated 15 patients treated for isolated primary posterior cruciate ligament injury with a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (range one to nine). Post-reconstruction clinical assessment included the Lysholm and Tegner knee scoring scale, international knee documentation committee (IKDC) ligament evaluation, and KT2000 arthrometer assessment.

Results

On the Lysholm knee score 11 patients (73 %) had excellent results, three patients (20 %) had good results and one patient (7 %) had a poor result. On the Tegner activity score the majority of patients scored 7–8 with a return to high level sports. At the final follow-up, the post-reconstruction IKDC score was normal or nearly normal (A and B) in 14 (93 %) patients, and abnormal (C) in one (7 %) patient. According to KT-2000 arthrometer measurements at final follow-up review, 11 patients (73 %) were rated as normal (A, 0–2 mm), and four patients (27 %) as nearly normal (B, 3–5 mm). These results were independent of age, mechanism of injury, time elapsed to surgical reconstruction, and length of follow-up.

Conclusions

Despite being a technically demanding procedure, the outcomes reported in this study show that single bundle transtibial arthroscopic PCL repair using four strands hamstring autograft provides satisfactory and consistent functional outcomes.     

Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The ideal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft substitute would have no morbidity associated with its procurement, be readily available for use, and be capable of strong fixation with sufficient inherent strength to withstand an accelerated postoperative rehabilitation program. In addition, the long-term results of ACL reconstruction using the graft substitute should be favorable. Unfortunately, such an ideal graft material does not currently exist. At present, available choices for ACL graft substitutes include autograft tissue, allograft tissue, and synthetic devices. This article presents the reader with a review of the factors involved in selecting a material to serve as a graft substitute for ACL reconstruction and explores the advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of various graft tissues.     

关节镜下个体化前交叉韧带单束与双束解剖重建的近期疗效比较

目的 探讨关节镜下个体化单束与双束解剖重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的技术,并比较二者的近期疗效.方法回顾性分析2007年3月到2009年9月行ACL个体化单、双束解剖重建且获得随访的117例ACL损伤患者资料,根据不同解剖重建方法分为两组:A组(个体化单束解剖重建)35例,男31例,女4例;平均年龄(28.6±5.1)岁.B组(个体化双束解剖重建)82例,男73例,女9例;平均年龄(27.6±5.4)岁.两组患者术前一般资料比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性.采用Lachman试验、轴移试验、KT-2000、国际膝关节评分委员会(IKDC)评分及Lysholm评分比较两组患者的疗效.结果 117例患者术后获11～25个月(平均15个月)随访.末次随访时Lachman试验结果:与健侧比较,A组完全正常者占88.6%(31/35),B组占95.1%(78/82);轴移试验结果:与健侧比较,A组完全正常者占88.6%(31/35),B组占96.3%(79/82);Lysholm评分:A组平均为(93.4±8.2)分,B组平均为(93.7±7.0)分,以上指标两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).而KT-2000检测结果:A组平均为(1.4±0.6)mm,B组平均为(1.1±0.5)mm;A组IKDC评分正常者(A级)占71.4%(25/35),B组占93.9%(77/82),两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论采用个体化解剖位双束重建能更好地恢复患者膝关节的稳定性.双束解剖重建术中ACL股骨与胫骨足迹、髁间窝宽度的判断对手术的设计至关重要,3入路技术、测量尺的应用是个体化ACL双束解剖重建的关键所在.

Abstract：

Objective To compare clinical outcomes of double-bundle and single-bundle in individualized arthroscopic anatomical reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) . Methods The clinical data of 117 patients were reviewed who had received double-bundle or single-bundle arthroscopic ACL reconstruction from March 2007 through September 2009 in our hospital and had undergone complete follow-up. Of them, 35 cases had single-bundle ACL reconstruction and 82 double-bundle reconstruction. In the single-bundle group(group A), there were 31 men and 4 women, aged 28. 6 ±5. 1 years. In the double-bundle group(group B), there were 73 men and 9 women, aged 27. 6 ±5. 4 years. The 2 groups were comparable in the preoperative demographic data ( P > 0. 05). To evaluate the outcomes, Lachman and Pivot Shift exams , KT-2000, Lysholm and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) scores, were adopted. Results The 117 patients received a mean follow-up of 15 months (from 11 to 25 months). The Lachman test showed 88. 6% (31/35) were normal in group A and 95. 1% (78/82) were normal in group B.The pivot-shift test showed 88. 6%(31/35) were normal in group A and 96. 3% (79/82) were normal in group B. Group A had a mean Lysholm score of 93. 4 ± 8. 2 and group B a mean Lysholm score of 93. 7 ±7. 0. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the above indexes ( P > 0. 05). By IKDC score, 71. 4% (25/135) were normal in group A and 93. 9% (77/82) were normal in group B. The KT-2000 test showed a mean of 1. 4 ± 0. 6 mm in group A and a mean of 1. 1 ± 0. 5 mm in group B. These 2 values were significantly different between the 2 groups ( P < 0. 05). Conclusions The individualized arthroscopic double-bundle anatomical reconstruction of ACL can maximally restore the anteroposterior and rotational stability. Arrangement of the ACL insertion site on the femoral and tibial side, three-portal technique and ruler application are keys for individualized anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction.     

关节镜下个体化前交叉韧带单束与双束解剖重建的近期疗效比较

Objective To compare clinical outcomes of double-bundle and single-bundle in individualized arthroscopic anatomical reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) . Methods The clinical data of 117 patients were reviewed who had received double-bundle or single-bundle arthroscopic ACL reconstruction from March 2007 through September 2009 in our hospital and had undergone complete follow-up. Of them, 35 cases had single-bundle ACL reconstruction and 82 double-bundle reconstruction. In the single-bundle group(group A), there were 31 men and 4 women, aged 28. 6 ±5. 1 years. In the double-bundle group(group B), there were 73 men and 9 women, aged 27. 6 ±5. 4 years. The 2 groups were comparable in the preoperative demographic data ( P > 0. 05). To evaluate the outcomes, Lachman and Pivot Shift exams , KT-2000, Lysholm and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) scores, were adopted. Results The 117 patients received a mean follow-up of 15 months (from 11 to 25 months). The Lachman test showed 88. 6% (31/35) were normal in group A and 95. 1% (78/82) were normal in group B.The pivot-shift test showed 88. 6%(31/35) were normal in group A and 96. 3% (79/82) were normal in group B. Group A had a mean Lysholm score of 93. 4 ± 8. 2 and group B a mean Lysholm score of 93. 7 ±7. 0. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the above indexes ( P > 0. 05). By IKDC score, 71. 4% (25/135) were normal in group A and 93. 9% (77/82) were normal in group B. The KT-2000 test showed a mean of 1. 4 ± 0. 6 mm in group A and a mean of 1. 1 ± 0. 5 mm in group B. These 2 values were significantly different between the 2 groups ( P < 0. 05). Conclusions The individualized arthroscopic double-bundle anatomical reconstruction of ACL can maximally restore the anteroposterior and rotational stability. Arrangement of the ACL insertion site on the femoral and tibial side, three-portal technique and ruler application are keys for individualized anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction.     

Patella infera following arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Fifty patients who had an arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for chronic insufficiency were reviewed at an average of 13.6 months following surgery. Among these patients, 32% complained of anterior knee pain that interfered with daily activities. Radiographic patella infera was present in 12% of patients using the Insall-Salvati ratio and in 16% using the Blackburne-Peel ratio. Radiographic patella infera did not correlate with the clinical problem of postoperative anterior knee pain. However, loss of knee extension of greater than 5 degrees correlated highly with pain (p=0.002).     

计算机导航关节镜下前十字韧带重建术

目的介绍计算机导航技术辅助关节镜下前十字韧带重建术的术前规划和手术方法,比较导航技术辅助与单纯关节镜技术中股骨、胫骨隧道位置的优良率。方法根据术前标准正侧位X线片设计股骨、胫骨隧道的理想位置。术中“C”型臂X线机获得正侧位影像后输入计算机,形成虚拟工作界面。膝关节周围分别于股骨、胫骨侧安置“患者追踪器”。前十字韧带胫骨及股骨导向器上分别装配“工具追踪器”。经过注册及校准后,导航系统识别并捕获上述追踪器发射的信号,确定膝关节的位置,实时跟踪手术工具的位置和方向,并将隧道的虚拟路径叠加在工作界面上,供术者实时调整导向器的位置与方向,直至达到术前规划的要求。临床上完成计算机导航关节镜下前十字韧带重建术46例。对其中40例进行术后X线片测量,确定胫骨及股骨隧道的位置,并与同期进行的40例单纯关节镜下重建术隧道位置的测量结果进行比较。结果导航组胫骨隧道位置平均为45.35%±3.827%(37%￣53%),股骨隧道位置平均为62.25%±5.610%(52%￣73%);关节镜组胫骨隧道位置平均为41.05%±6.008%(25%～54%),股骨隧道位置平均为56.62%±7.316%(46%￣77%)。导航组的股骨及胫骨隧道位置较关节镜组偏后,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),导航组的标准差小于关节镜组。结论计算机导航技术可以使关节镜下前十字韧带重建手术中胫骨及股骨隧道的位置更偏后,提高了手术准确性及可重复性。