Literature DB >> 12579148

Anterior cruciate ligament tunnel placement: Comparison of insertion site anatomy with the guidelines of a computer-assisted surgical system.

Volker Musahl1, Andreas Burkart, Richard E Debski, Andrew Van Scyoc, Freddie H Fu, Savio L Y Woo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: With the development of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) systems, the surgeon's ability to operate a CAS planning station will become essential. For example, default parameters in computed tomographic (CT) data are being used to place tunnels in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The goal of this study was to compare the location of the insertion sites in ACL reconstruction anatomically, via roentgenographic images and via CT scan data and to validate these tunnel placement parameters. TYPE OF STUDY: Cadaveric analysis.
METHODS: Eight human cadaveric knees were marked with 6 copper wires 1 mm in diameter around the circumference of the insertions of the ACL. Using lateral roentgenograms and CT scans that were subsequently transferred to the CAS planning station, the tunnel locations were determined. These were based on a distance from the back of the condyle (location A) and from the roof of the notch (location B) on the femur and on a distance posterior from the tuberosity to the posterior margin along the tibial plateau, which is set as the CAS planning station's default. Locations according to roentgenograms and CT scans were then compared and the accuracy of the CAS planning station was assessed.
RESULTS: Comparison of roentgenograms and CT revealed a femoral insertion at 27.5% +/- 3.2% and 26.9% +/- 3.5% (roentgenograms) and 26.6% +/- 1.9% and 26.3% +/- 2.4% (CT), respectively. The CAS planning station provided a tunnel location that was 1.3 +/- 1.0 mm (0.3 to 2.5 mm) away from the actual femoral ACL insertion. The tibial tunnel was placed according to the copper wire markers and was found to be at 46.2% +/- 2.8% (roentgenograms) and 45.4% +/- 2.1% (CT). No statistical differences between position in CT and roentgenograms could be detected (P >.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The compared methodologies showed similar locations of the ACL insertions, assuring accurate preoperative planning with the CAS system. However, the CAS system requires adjustment to each individual knee anatomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12579148     DOI: 10.1053/jars.2003.50001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  24 in total

1.  Variation in the shape of the tibial insertion site of the anterior cruciate ligament: classification is required.

Authors:  Daniel Guenther; Sebastian Irarrázaval; Yuichiro Nishizawa; Cara Vernacchia; Eric Thorhauer; Volker Musahl; James J Irrgang; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Morphometric side-to-side differences in human cruciate ligament insertions.

Authors:  Jens Dargel; Peer Pohl; Prokopios Tzikaras; Juergen Koebke
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2006-04-11       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 3.  Anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and function relating to anatomical reconstruction.

Authors:  Thore Zantop; Wolf Petersen; Jon K Sekiya; Volker Musahl; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2006-08-05       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Roentgenographic measurement study for locating femoral insertion site of anterior cruciate ligament: a cadaveric study with X-Caliper.

Authors:  Lin Guo; Liu Yang; Ai-Min Wang; Xiao-Yu Wang; Gang Dai
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-05-07       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Computed tomography evaluation of the femoral and tibial attachments of the posterior cruciate ligament in vitro.

Authors:  Philippe Greiner; Robert A Magnussen; Sébastien Lustig; Guillaume Demey; Philippe Neyret; Elvire Servien
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Radiographic positions of femoral ACL, AM and PL centres: accuracy of guidelines based on the lateral quadrant method.

Authors:  Joan W H Luites; Nico Verdonschot
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-07-04       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Radiographic Anatomy of the Native Anterior Cruciate Ligament: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jaron P Sullivan; Shane Cook; Yubo Gao; Brian R Wolf
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-12-02

8.  Variability of landmark acquisition affects tunnel calculation in image-free ACL navigation.

Authors:  Sven Shafizadeh; Maurice Balke; Ulrich Hagn; Stefan Grote; Bertil Bouillon; Marc Banerjee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament insertion sites: comparison of plain radiography and three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging to anatomic dissection.

Authors:  Joon Kyu Lee; Sahnghoon Lee; Sang Cheol Seong; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Variability of tunnel positioning in fluoroscopic-assisted ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Shafizadeh Sven; Balke Maurice; Juergen Hoeher; Banerjee Marc
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-05-11       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.