The effect of notchplasty in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study in the porcine knee

Introduction

Notchplasty is frequently performed by many orthopaedic surgeons during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The effect of notchplasty on tunnel placement and knee biomechanics with ACL reconstruction is not known.

Methods

Twelve (n = 12) porcine knees were tested using a robotic testing system. Four knee states were compared: (1) intact ACL, (2) ACL-deficient, (3) anatomic single bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction and (4) anatomic SB ACL reconstruction with a 5-mm notchplasty. The graft was fixed at 60° of flexion (full extension of porcine knee is 30°) with an 80-N tension. The knees were subjected to two loading conditions: an 89-N anterior tibial load (ATT) and 4 Nm internal (IR) and external tibial (ER) rotational torques. The kinematics and in situ force obtained from the different knee conditions were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences between pre- and post-notchplasty in the ER at 30° and 60° of knee flexion (n.s.). However, a significant difference was found between pre- and post-notchplasty in ATT at 30° and 60° of flexion (p < 0.05). The in situ force in the anatomic SB reconstruction with notchplasty was significant lower than the intact and anatomic reconstructed ACL pre-notchplasty at 30°, 60° and 90° of knee flexion (p < 0.05). In response to the IR tibial torque, there were significant differences between pre- and post-notchplasty in IR at 60° (p < 0.05) of knee flexion.

Conclusion

Notchplasty had greater effect on anterior stability than rotational stability. This change in knee kinematics could be detrimental to a healing bone graft, ligamentization and could lead to failure of the reconstruction in early post-operative period.     

The effect of anterior cruciate ligament graft rotation on knee biomechanics

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects on knee biomechanics of rotating the distal end of the bone-patellar tendon graft 90° in anatomic single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with a porcine model.

Methods

Twenty (n = 20) porcine knees were evaluated using a robotic testing system. Two groups and three knee states were compared: (1) intact ACL, (2) deficient ACL and (3) anatomic SB ACL reconstruction with (a) non-rotated graft or (b) rotated graft (anatomic external fibre rotation). Anterior tibial translation (ATT), internal (IR) and external rotation (ER) and the in situ tissue force were measured under an 89-N anterior tibial (AT) load and 4-N m internal and external tibial torques.

Results

A significant difference from the intact ACL was found in ATT at 60° and 90° of knee flexion for rotated and non-rotated graft reconstructions (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in the in situ force from the intact ACL with AT loading for rotated and non-rotated graft reconstructions at 60° and 90° of knee flexion (p < 0.05). Under IR loading, the in situ force was significantly different from the intact ACL at 30° and 60° of knee flexion for rotated and non-rotated graft reconstructions (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in ATT, IR, ER and the in situ force between rotated and non-rotated reconstructions.

Conclusion

Graft rotation can be used with anatomic SB ACL reconstruction and not have a deleterious effect on knee anterior and rotational biomechanics. This study has clinical relevance in regard to the use of graft rotation to better reproduce the native ACL fibre orientation in ACL reconstruction.

     

Anatomic and non-anatomic anterior cruciate ligament posterolateral bundle augmentation affects graft function

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare knee laxity and graft function (tissue force) between anatomic and non-anatomic posterolateral (PL) bundle augmentation.

Methods

Twelve (n = 12) fresh-frozen mature, unpaired porcine knees were tested using a robotic testing system. Four knee states were compared: (a) intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), (b) deficient PL and intermediate bundles, (c) anatomic PL augmentation, and (d) non-anatomic PL augmentation. Anterior tibial translation (ATT), internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER), and the in situ tissue force were measured under an 89.0-N anterior tibial load and 4.0-N m internal and external tibial torques.

Results

Both anatomic and non-anatomic PL augmentation restored the ER, IR, and ATT of the intact knee at all knee flexion angles (n.s.). Both anatomic and non-anatomic PL augmentation restored the in situ tissue force of the ACL during ER and IR loading and ATT loading at all knee flexion angles except at 60° of knee flexion, where the non-anatomic PL augmentation did not restore the in situ tissue force of the ACL during external rotation loading and the anatomic PL augmentation did not restore the in situ tissue force of the ACL during IR loading. Furthermore, there were no differences in ATT, IR, ER, and in situ tissue force under anterior tibial loading, IR and ER loading between the two reconstruction groups.

Conclusion

There were no significant differences between anatomic and non-anatomic PL augmentation using the porcine knee model.

     

Coronal tibial anteromedial tunnel location has minimal effect on knee biomechanics

Purpose

Studies have found anatomic variation in the coronal position of the insertion site of anteromedial (AM) bundle of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) on the tibia, which can lead to questions about tunnel placement during ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to determine how mediolateral placement of the tibial AM graft tunnel in double-bundle ACL reconstructions affects knee biomechanics.

Methods

Two different types of double-bundle ACL reconstructions were performed. The AM tibial tunnel was placed at either the medial or lateral portion of tibial AM footprint. Nine cadaveric knees were tested with the robotic/universal force-moment sensor system with the use of (1) an 89.0-N anterior tibial load at full extension (FE), 30°, 60° and 90° of knee flexion and (2) a combined 7.0-Nm valgus torque and 5.0-Nm internal tibial rotation torque at FE, 15°, 30°and 45° of knee flexion.

Results

Both medial (2.6?±?1.2 mm) and lateral (1.6?±?0.9 mm) double-bundle reconstructions reduced the anterior tibial translation (ATT) to less than the intact value (3.9?±?0.7 mm) at FE. At all other flexion angles, there was no significant different in ATT between the intact knee and the reconstructions. At FE, the ATT for the medial AM reconstruction was different from that of the lateral AM construction and closer to the intact ACL value.

Conclusion

The coronal tibial placement of the AM tunnel had only a slight effect on knee biomechanics. In patients with differing AM bundle coronal positions, the AM tibial tunnel can be placed anatomically at the native insertion site.

     

Effect of tunnel position for anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction on knee biomechanics in a porcine model

Attention has been focused on the importance of anatomical tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of different tunnel positions for single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction on knee kinematics. Ten porcine knees were used for the following reconstruction techniques: three different anatomic SB [AM–AM (antero-medial), PL–PL (postero-lateral), and MID–MID] (n = 5 for each group), conventional SB (PL–high AM) (n = 5), and anatomic double-bundle (DB) (n = 5). Using a robotic/universal force–moment sensor testing system, an 89 N anterior load (simulated KT1000 test) at 30, 60, and 90° of knee flexion and a combined internal rotation (4 N m) and valgus (7 N m) moment (simulated pivot-shift test) at 30 and 60° were applied. Anterior tibial translation (ATT) (mm) and in situ forces (N) of reconstructed grafts were calculated. During simulated KT1000 test at 60° of knee flexion, the PL–PL had significantly lower in situ force than the intact ACL (P < 0.01). In situ force of the MID–MID was higher than other SB reconstructions (at 30°: 94.8 ± 2.5 N; at 60°: 85.2 ± 5.3 N; and 90°: 66.0 ± 8.7 N). At 30° of knee flexion, the PL–high AM had the lowest in situ values (67.1 ± 19.3 N). At 60 and 90° of knee flexion the PL–PL had the lowest in situ values (at 60°: 60.8 ± 19.9 N; 90°: 38.4 ± 19.2 N). The MID–MID and DB had no significant in situ force differences at 30 and 60° of knee flexion. During simulated pivot-shift test at 60° of knee flexion, the PL–PL and PL–high AM reconstructions had a significant lower in situ force than the intact ACL (P < 0.01). During simulated KT1000 test at 30, 60, and 90° of knee flexion, the PL–PL and PL–high AM had significantly lower ATT than the intact ACL (P < 0.01). During simulated KT1000 test at 60 and 90°, the MID–MID, AM–AM, and DB had significantly lower ATT than the ACL deficient knee (P < 0.01). During simulated KT1000 test at 90°, every reconstructed knee had significantly higher ATT than the intact knee (P < 0.01). In conclusion, the MID–MID position provided the best stability among all anatomic SB reconstructions and more closely restored normal knee kinematics.     

ACL mismatch reconstructions: influence of different tunnel placement strategies in single-bundle ACL reconstructions on the knee kinematics

To evaluate the influence of tibial and femoral tunnel position in ACL reconstruction on knee kinematics, we compared ACL reconstruction with a tibial and femoral tunnel in anteromedial (AM-AM reconstruction) and in posterolateral footprint (PL-PL reconstruction) with a reconstruction technique with tibial posterolateral and femoral anteromedial tunnel placement (PL-AM reconstruction). In 9 fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees, the knee kinematics under simulated Lachman (134 N anterior tibial load) and a simulated pivot shift test (10 N/m valgus and 4 N/m internal tibial torque) were determined at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion. Kinematics were recorded for intact, ACL-deficient, and single-bundle ACL reconstructed knees using three different reconstruction strategies in randomized order: (1) PL-AM, (2) AM-AM and (3) PL-PL reconstructions. Under simulated Lachman test, single-bundle PL-AM reconstruction and PL-PL reconstructions both showed significantly increased anterior tibial translation (ATT) at 60° and 90° when compared to the intact knee. At all flexion angles, AM-AM reconstruction did not show any statistical significant differences in ATT compared to the intact knee. Under simulated pivot shift, PL-AM reconstruction resulted in significantly higher ATT at 0°, 30°, and 60° knee flexion and AM-AM reconstructions showed significantly higher ATT at 30° compared to the intact knee. PL-PL reconstructions did not show any significant differences to the intact knee. AM-AM reconstructions restore the intact knee kinematics more closely when compared to a PL-AM technique resembling a transtibial approach. PL-PL reconstructions showed increased ATT at higher flexion angles, however, secured the rotational stability at all flexion angles. Due to the independent tibial and femoral tunnel location, a medial portal technique may be superior to a transtibial approach.     

ACL–PCL and intercondylar notch impingement: magnetic resonance imaging of native and double-bundle ACL-reconstructed knees

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to: (1) define the relationship between the ACL and PCL in normal knees; (2) determine whether ACL–PCL impingement occurs in native knees; and (3) determine whether there is a difference in impingement between double-bundle reconstructed and native knees.

Methods

Eight subjects were identified (age 20–50; 6 females, 2 males). All were at least 1-year status postanatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction (allograft; AM = 8 mm; PL = 7 mm) and had no history of injury or surgery to the contralateral knee. MRIs of both knees were performed with the knee at 0 and 30° of flexion. The images were evaluated by a non-treating surgeon and two musculoskeletal radiologists. Coronal and sagittal angles of AM and PL bundles, Liu’s PCL index and the distance between ACL and PCL on modified axial oblique images were recorded. Impingement was graded (1) no contact; (2) contact without deformation; or (3) contact and distortion of PCL contour.

Results

Seventy-five percent (6) of the native ACL’s showed no contact with the roof of the intercondylar notch or PCL, compared to 25 % (2) of the double-bundle reconstructed ACLs. One double-bundle reconstructed ACL showed intercondylar notch roof and ACL–PCL impingement (12.5 %). Significant differences were found between the native ACL and the double-bundle reconstructed ACL for the coronal angle of the AM (79° vs. 72°, p = 0.002) and PL bundle (75° vs. 58°, p = 0.001). No differences in ROM or stability were noted at any follow-up interval between groups based on MRI impingement grade.

Conclusion

ACL–PCL contact occurred in 25 % of native knees. Contact between the ACL graft and PCL occurred in 75 % of double-bundle reconstructed knees. ACL–PCL impingement, both contact and distortion of the PCL, occurred in one knee after double-bundle reconstruction. This study offers perspective on what can be considered normal contact between the ACL and PCL and how impingement after ACL reconstruction can be detected on MRI.

Level of evidence

Cohort Study, Level III.     

Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction restricts knee extension in knees with hyperextension

Purpose

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction has been demonstrated to be at least as effective as single-bundle reconstruction in terms of restoring knee rotational and translational stability. Until now, the influence on knees with hyperextension has not been evaluated. It was the purpose of this study to evaluate whether double-bundle ACL reconstruction restricts extension in hyperextendable knees.

Methods

Hamstring tendon reconstructions of 10 human cadaveric knees with the ability of hyperextension (age: 48 ± 14 years) were performed as single bundle (SB) on one side and double bundle (DB) on the other side. A surgical navigation system (BrainLab, Germany) was used to assess the kinematics of each knee at the intact and reconstructed state. A difference with regard to the anterior-to-posterior translation (AP) and rotational stability at 30° of knee flexion, 90° of flexion and the hyperextension capability of each specimen was analysed.

Results

The difference in AP translation before and after the reconstruction was not significantly different in 30° and 90° of flexion (n.s). Both single- and double-bundle reconstructions restored the preoperative kinematics at 30° and 90° of knee flexion (n.s). The knee extension was 4° ± 1.8° with the intact ACL and 4° ± 1.7° after reconstruction in the SB group (n.s). The knee extension was 5° of hyperextension ± 1.1° with the intact ACL and 0° ± 0.4° after reconstruction in the DB group; the limitation of the extension was significantly larger in this group (p = 0.013).

Conclusion

Both single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction techniques are capable of restoring knee anteroposterior and rotational stability. Double-bundle reconstructions significantly reduce knee extension in knees with hyperextension capability. Care must be taken when using double-bundle techniques in patients with knee hyperextension as this procedure may limit the knee extension after double-bundle ACL reconstruction.     

Biomechanics of the goat three bundle anterior cruciate ligament

The goat is a widely used animal model for basic research on the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), but the biomechanical role of the different bundles [intermediate (IM), anteromedial (AM), posterolateral (PL)] of the ACL is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to describe the biomechanical function of the different bundles and evaluate its use for a double bundle ACL reconstruction model. A CASPAR Stäubli RX90 robot with a six degree-of-freedom load cell was used for measurement of anterior tibial translation (ATT) (mm) and in situ forces (N) at 30° (full extension), 60°, 90° as well as rotational testing at 30° in 14 paired goat knees before and after each bundle was cut. When the AM-bundle was cut, the ATT increased significantly at 60° and 90° of flexion (p < 0.05). When the PL-bundle was cut, the ATT increased only at 30°. However, most load was transferred through the big AM-bundle while the PL-bundle shared significant load only at 30°, with only minimal contribution from the IM-bundle at all flexion degrees. The observed biomechanical results in this study are similar to the human ACL observed previously in the literature. Though anatomically discernible, the IM-bundle plays only an inferior role in ATT and might be neglected as a separate bundle during reconstruction. The goat ACL shows some differences to the human ACL, whereas the main functions of the ACL bundles are similar.     

Biomechanics of the porcine triple bundle anterior cruciate ligament

Several species of animals are used as a model to study human anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. In many animals, three bundles were clearly discernible during dissection in the ACL. However, there are few reports about the biomechanical role of each bundle in the porcine knee. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of each of the three bundles in the porcine knee, especially the intermediate bundle. Ten porcine knees were tested using a robotic/universal forcemoment sensor system. This system applied anterior loading of 89 N at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion, and a combined 7 Nm valgus and 4 Nm internal tibial torque at 30° and 60° of flexion before and after each bundle was selectively cut. The in situ force (N) for each bundle of the ACL was measured. Both intermediate (IM) bundle and postero-lateral (PL) bundle had significantly lower in situ force than the antero-medial (AM) bundle in anterior loading. The IM and PL bundles carried a larger proportion of the force under the torsional loads than the anterior loads. But IM bundle had a significant lower in situ force during the combined torque at 60° of knee flexion, when compared intact ACL. In summary, IM bundle has a subordinate role to the AM and PL bundles. AM bundle is more dominant than IM and PL bundles. The porcine knee is a suitable model for ACL studies, especially for AP stability.     

Anatomic ACL reconstruction produces greater graft length change during knee range-of-motion than transtibial technique

Purpose

Because distance between the knee ACL femoral and tibial footprint centrums changes during knee range-of-motion, surgeons must understand the effect of ACL socket position on graft length, in order to avoid graft rupture which may occur when tensioning and fixation is performed at the incorrect knee flexion angle. The purpose of this study is to evaluate change in intra-articular length of a reconstructed ACL during knee range-of-motion comparing anatomic versus transtibial techniques.

Methods

After power analysis, seven matched pair cadaveric knees were tested. The ACL was debrided, and femoral and tibial footprint centrums for anatomic versus transtibial techniques were identified and marked. A suture anchor was placed at the femoral centrum and a custom, cannulated suture-centring device at the tibial centrum, and excursion of the suture, representing length change of an ACL graft during knee range-of-motion, was measured in millimeters and recorded using a digital transducer.

Results

Mean increase in length as the knee was ranged 120°–0° (full extension) was 4.5 mm (±2.0 mm) for transtibial versus 6.7 mm (±0.9 mm) for anatomic ACL technique. A significant difference in length change occurs during knee range-of-motion both within groups and between the two groups.

Conclusions

Change in length of the ACL intra-articular distance during knee range-of-motion is greater for anatomic socket position compared to transtibial position. Surgeons performing anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction may tension and fix grafts with the knee in full extension to minimize risk of graft stretch or rupture or knee capture during full extension. This technique may also result in knee anterior–posterior laxity in knee flexion.     

Comparative risk of common peroneal nerve injury in far anteromedial portal drilling and transtibial drilling in anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of common peroneal nerve injury in FM drilling as compared to transtibial drilling in anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Methods

Ten cadaveric knees without ligament injury or significant arthritis were used for this study. Knees were secured at 90° and 120° of flexion. In transtibial drilling groups, a guide pin was drilled through either the anteromedial bundle (AMB) or posterolateral bundle (PLB) tibial insertion site to either the AMB or PLB femoral insertion site (tibial insertion site–femoral insertion site: AM–AM, PL–PL, PL-AM and AM–PL). In FM drilling groups (FM-AM and FM-PL),the pin was drilled at the AMB or PLB femoral insertion site through the FM. We measured the shortest distance between the point at which the pin ran through the lateral cortex of the femur and the ipsilateral common peroneal nerve at a knee flexion of 90° and 120°.

Results

At a knee flexion of 90°, the shortest mean distance to the common peroneal nerve was 15.3?mm in the FM-PL group, 13.4?mm in the FM-AM group, 27.9?mm in the PL–PL group, 30.8?mm in the AM–AM group, 37.8?mm in the PL–AM group and 29.5?mm in the AM–PL group. At a knee of flexion 120°, the mean distance was 17.3?mm in the FM-PL group, 18.1?mm in the FM-AM group, 32.2?mm in the PL–PL group, 36.6?mm in the AM–AM group, 38.0?mm in the PL–AM group and 35.2?mm in the AM–PL group. Significant differences were observed between 90° and 120° of knee flexion in the FM-AM, PL–PL, AM–AM and AM–PL groups (P?<?0.05).Significant differences were observed at flex 90° between the FM-AM group and AM–AM group, and between the FM-AM group and PL–AM group. Significant differences were observed at flex 120° between the FM-AM group and AM–AM group, between the FM-AM group and PL–AM group and between the FM-PL group and AM–PL group.

Conclusion

The distance to the peroneal nerve in FM drilling was significantly longer at 120° than at 90° of knee flexion. Therefore, the risk of peroneal injury using FM drilling should decrease at a higher angle of knee flexion.     

Knee rotation influences the femoral tunnel angle measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 3-dimensional computed tomography model study

Purpose

Femoral tunnel angle (FTA) has been proposed as a metric for evaluating whether ACL reconstruction was performed anatomically. In clinic, radiographic images are typically acquired with an uncertain amount of internal/external knee rotation. The extent to which knee rotation will influence FTA measurement is unclear. Furthermore, differences in FTA measurement between the two common positions (0° and 45° knee flexion) have not been established. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of knee rotation on FTA measurement after ACL reconstruction.

Methods

Knee CT data from 16 subjects were segmented to produce 3D bone models. Central axes of tunnels were identified. The 0° and 45° flexion angles were simulated. Knee internal/external rotations were simulated in a range of ±20°. FTA was defined as the angle between the tunnel axis and femoral shaft axis, orthogonally projected into the coronal plane.

Results

Femoral tunnel angle was positively/negatively correlated with knee rotation angle at 0°/45° knee flexion. At 0° knee flexion, FTA for anterio-medial (AM) tunnels was significantly decreased at 20° of external knee rotation. At 45° knee flexion, more than 16° external or 19° internal rotation significantly altered FTA measurements for single-bundle tunnels; smaller rotations (±9° for AM, ±5° for PL) created significant errors in FTA measurements after double-bundle reconstruction.

Conclusion

Femoral tunnel angle measurements were correlated with knee rotation. Relatively small imaging malalignment introduced significant errors with knee flexed 45°. This study supports using the 0° flexion position for knee radiographs to reduce errors in FTA measurement due to knee internal/external rotation.

Level of evidence

Case–control study, Level III.     

Comparison of tunnel positions in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using computer navigation

Recurrent rotational instability has been identified as a potential source of failure of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. The aim of the study was to assess whether knee kinematics in the horizontal configuration more closely resemble the intact knee when compared with other single-bundle configurations. Using the Praxim computer navigation system, ACL reconstructions were performed with tibialis anterior grafts in six fresh-frozen whole lower extremity cadaver specimens (12 knees). In each knee, all four reconstruction configurations: conventional (PL tibia to AM femur), anteromedial (AM), posterolateral (PL), and horizontal (AM tibia to PL femur) were performed. Standardized Lachman and pivot shift examinations were performed. For all graft positions during the pivot shift, decreases in the amount of ATT were observed compared with the ACL-deficient state. The knees with grafts placed in the anterior tibial footprint (AM and horizontal) had less ATT with the Lachman and pivot shift maneuvers than knees with grafts placed in the posterior tibial footprint (PL and conventional). A significant difference in depth of impingement was noted only between the AM position and the PL position. Single-bundle ACL reconstructions using graft placement within the anterior footprint on the tibia may reduce rotational instability when compared with more vertical configurations.     

Prospective randomized comparison of anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Purpose

To determine if anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is superior to anatomic single-bundle reconstruction in restoring the stabilities and functions of the knee joint.

Methods

A prospective randomized clinical study was done to compare the results of 32 cases of anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction and 34 cases of anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction with average follow-up of 16.3 ± 3.1 months. Tunnel placements of all the cases were measured on 3D CT. Clinical results were collected after reconstruction; graft’s appearance, meniscus status and cartilage state under arthroscopy were compared and analysed too.

Results

Tunnel placements, confirmed with 3D CT, were in the anatomic positions as described in literature both in SB and DB group. No differences were found between SB and DB groups in clinical outcome scores, pivot shift test and KT 1000 measurements (average side-to-side difference for anterior tibial translation was 0.7 mm in SB group and 1.0 mm in DB group). More than 70 % of the single-bundle graft and AM bundle graft in DB group appeared excellent, but only 44.1 % of PL bundle grafts in DB group were excellent and 11.8 % were in poor state. No new menisci tear was found either in SB or DB group, however, in DB group cartilage damages in medial patella-femoral joint occurred in 38.2 % cases. This rate was significantly higher than in the SB group which is only 9.3 %.

Conclusion

Both single- and double-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction can restore the knee’s stability and functions very well. However, more incidences of poor PL status and medial patellar-femoral cartilage damage may occur in double-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Level of evidence

Randomized controlled trial, Level I.     

Roles of ACL remnants in knee stability

Purpose

This study evaluated knee laxity in anterior tibial translation and rotation following removal of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnants using a computer navigation system.

Methods

This prospective study included 50 knees undergoing primary ACL reconstruction using a navigation system. ACL remnants were classified into four morphologic types: Type 1, bridging between the roof of the intercondylar notch and tibia; Type 2, bridging between the posterior cruciate ligament and tibia; Type 3, bridging between the anatomical insertions of the ACL on the lateral wall of the femoral condyle and the tibia; and Type 4, no bridging of ACL remnants. Anterior tibial translation and rotatory laxity were measured before and after remnant resection using a navigation system at 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion. The amount of change in anterior tibial translation and rotatory laxity of each type was compared among the types.

Results

The different morphologic types of ACL remnants were as follows: Type 1, 15 knees; Type 2, 9 knees; Type 3, 6 knees; and Type 4, 20 knees. The amount of change in anterior tibial translation and rotatory laxity at 30° knee flexion in Type 3 was significantly larger than in the other types. There were no significant differences in either tibial translation or rotatory laxity at 60° and 90° knee flexion among the types.

Conclusions

In Type 3, ACL remnants contributed to anteroposterior and rotatory knee laxity evaluated at 30° knee flexion. The bridging point of the remnants is important to knee laxity. The Type 3 remnant should be preserved as much as possible when ACL reconstruction surgery is performed.

Level of evidence

Prognostic study, Level II.     

Anatomic single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis

Purpose

To determine whether anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared to anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction more effectively restored antero–posterior (A–P) laxity, rotatory laxity and reduced frequency of graft rupture. Our hypothesis was that anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction results in superior rotational knee laxity and fewer graft ruptures due to its double-bundle tension pattern, compared with anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Methods

An electronic search was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. All therapeutic trials written in English reporting knee kinematic outcomes and graft rupture rates of primary anatomic double- versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction were included. Only clinical studies of levels I–II evidence were included. Data regarding kinematic tests were extracted and included pivot-shift test, Lachman test, anterior drawer test, KT-1000 measurements, A–P laxity measures using navigation and total internal–external (IRER) laxity measured using navigation, as well as graft failure frequency.

Results

A total of 7,154 studies were identified of which 15 papers (8 randomized controlled trials and 7 prospective cohort studies, n = 970 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Anatomic ACL double-bundle reconstruction demonstrated less anterior laxity using KT-1000 arthrometer with a standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.36 (95 % CI 0.214–0.513, p < 0.001) and less A–P laxity measured with navigation (SMD = 0.29 95 % CI 0.01–0.565, p = 0.042). Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction did not lead to significant improvements in pivot-shift test, Lachman test, anterior drawer test, total IRER or graft failure rates compared to anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Conclusion

Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction is superior to anatomic single-bundle reconstruction in terms of restoration of knee kinematics, primarily A–P laxity. Whether these improvements of laxity result in long-term improvement of clinical meaningful outcomes remains uncertain.

Level of evidence

II.     

Anatomic double-bundle versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction: a comparative biomechanical study in rabbits

Thirty New Zealand white rabbits underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in their right knees; 15 animals underwent a double-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction using the medial third of the patellar tendon and the semitendinosus tendon. Additionally, 15 animals underwent ACL reconstruction, using a single-bundle semitendinosus tendon autograft. The knees of both groups were evaluated with a device similar to the KT1000 arthrometer onto which a dial indicator was attached (Mitutoyo dial indicator 2050) in 30° and 90° of flexion, preoperatively, after ACL resection and 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis of the results revealed that for 90° of knee flexion, the mean estimated anterior shift for the double-bundle technique was 1.92 mm lesser than that of the single-bundle technique (P = 0.006). For 30° of knee flexion, the mean anterior shift was again lesser than that of the single-bundle technique by 0.66 mm, but this difference was not statistically significant. The described double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique resulted in a more stable knee as far as the anterior tibial shift was concerned as compared to a single-bundle ACL reconstruction. This animal model may be potentially useful in the future for the study of other parameters influencing the outcome of the double-bundle ACL reconstruction.     

Mechanical functions of the three bundles consisting of the human anterior cruciate ligament

Purpose

The reconstruction technique to individually reconstruct multi-bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has been improved in the last decade. For further improvement of the technique, the present study was conducted to determine the force sharing among the three bundles (the medial and lateral bundles (AMM and AML) of the anteromedial (AM) bundle and the posterlateral (PL) bundle) of the human ACL in response to hyperextension, passive flexion–extension and anterior force to the knee.

Methods

Using a 6-DOF robotic system, the human cadaveric knee specimens were subjected to hyperextension, passive flexion–extension and anterior–posterior tests, while recording the 6-DOF motion and force/moment of the knees. The intact knee motions recorded during the tests were reproduced after sequential bundle transection to determine the bundle forces.

Results

The bundle forces were around 10 N at 5 N-m of hyperextension and remained less than 5 N during passive flexion–extension. In response to 100 N of anterior force, the AMM and PL bundle forces were slightly higher than the AML bundle force at full extension. The AMM bundle force remained at a high level up to 90° of flexion, with significant differences versus the AML bundle force at 15°, 30° and 60° of flexion and the PL bundle force at 90° of flexion.

Conclusion

The AMM bundle is the primary stabilizer to tibial anterior drawer through wide range of motion, while the AML bundle is the secondary stabilizer in deep flexion angles. The PL bundle is the crucial stabilizer to hyperextension as well as tibial anterior drawer at full extension.

Level of evidence

Prognostic study, Level II.