Chih-Hui Chen1, Hemanth R Gadikota, Thomas J Gill, Guoan Li. 1. Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street-GRJ 1215, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper investigated the effect of graft fixation sequence on knee joint biomechanics after a double-bundle ACL reconstruction. METHOD: Two independently published biomechanical studies that investigated the biomechanics of double-bundle ACL reconstructions using similar robotic testing systems were compared. In each study, ten human cadaveric knees were tested under three different conditions: intact, ACL deficient, and ACL reconstructed using a double-bundle technique with the anteromedial (AM) graft fixed at 60° of flexion and the posterolateral (PL) graft fixed at full extension. In one study (Study A), the AM graft was fixed first; while in another study (Study B), the PL graft was fixed first. Knee kinematics, in situ forces of the ACL and the ACL grafts were measured under two loading conditions: an anterior tibial load of 134 N and a combined tibial torques (10 N·m valgus and 5 N·m internal tibial torques) in both studies. RESULT: When AM graft was fixed first, the in situ force of the AM graft was lower than the native AM bundle at all flexion angles. The in situ force in the PL graft, however, was higher than the native PL bundle at all flexion angles. When the PL graft was fixed first, the in situ force of the AM graft was higher than the native AM bundle, while the in situ forces of the PL graft were lower than the native PL bundle at all flexion angles. Both studies demonstrated that the double-bundle ACL reconstructions can closely restore the normal knee joint kinematics. CONCLUSION: Even though the grafts were fixed using similar initial tensions and at same flexion angles, the sequence of fixing the two grafts in a double-bundle ACL reconstruction could alter the in situ forces in the grafts and affect the knee kinematics. These data imply that in clinical application of a double-bundle ACL reconstruction, the sequence of graft fixation should be an important surgical parameter.
PURPOSE: This paper investigated the effect of graft fixation sequence on knee joint biomechanics after a double-bundle ACL reconstruction. METHOD: Two independently published biomechanical studies that investigated the biomechanics of double-bundle ACL reconstructions using similar robotic testing systems were compared. In each study, ten human cadaveric knees were tested under three different conditions: intact, ACL deficient, and ACL reconstructed using a double-bundle technique with the anteromedial (AM) graft fixed at 60° of flexion and the posterolateral (PL) graft fixed at full extension. In one study (Study A), the AM graft was fixed first; while in another study (Study B), the PL graft was fixed first. Knee kinematics, in situ forces of the ACL and the ACL grafts were measured under two loading conditions: an anterior tibial load of 134 N and a combined tibial torques (10 N·m valgus and 5 N·m internal tibial torques) in both studies. RESULT: When AM graft was fixed first, the in situ force of the AM graft was lower than the native AM bundle at all flexion angles. The in situ force in the PL graft, however, was higher than the native PL bundle at all flexion angles. When the PL graft was fixed first, the in situ force of the AM graft was higher than the native AM bundle, while the in situ forces of the PL graft were lower than the native PL bundle at all flexion angles. Both studies demonstrated that the double-bundle ACL reconstructions can closely restore the normal knee joint kinematics. CONCLUSION: Even though the grafts were fixed using similar initial tensions and at same flexion angles, the sequence of fixing the two grafts in a double-bundle ACL reconstruction could alter the in situ forces in the grafts and affect the knee kinematics. These data imply that in clinical application of a double-bundle ACL reconstruction, the sequence of graft fixation should be an important surgical parameter.
Authors: Masayoshi Yagi; Eric K Wong; Akihiro Kanamori; Richard E Debski; Freddie H Fu; Savio L-Y Woo Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: M Ettinger; M Petri; D Guenther; C Liu; C Krusche; E Liodakis; U-V Albrecht; C Krettek; M Jagodzinski Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 4.342