PURPOSE: The optimal technique for reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is controversial. Regardless of surgical technique and graft choice, anatomic graft placement is essential for successful outcome. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the size and location of the insertions of the PCL using a computed tomography (CT) protocol. METHODS: The insertions in ten knees were marked in vitro with plastic markers. The CT examination was performed with the knee in extension. On the femur, the position of the center of the insertion site was evaluated relative to Blumensaat's line and the anterior articular surface. On the tibia, the location of the center of the insertion site was described relative to the borders of the tibial plateau and the retrospinal surface. RESULTS: The surface area of the femoral insertion measured 232 mm(-2) and was centered 8.9 mm from the roof of the intercondylar notch and 18.7 mm from the anterior articular cartilage surface. The surface area of the tibial insertion was 155 mm(2) and was centered 9.1 mm from the posterior border of the tibia on the retrospinal surface, 1.6 mm inferior to the plane of the tibial articular surface. This point was on average 49% of the way across the plateau relative to the medial edge of the plateau and 87% of the way across the plateau relative to the anterior edge. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography can provide detailed localization of the PCL attachment sites on the femur and tibia. Radiation exposure and cost may preclude routine use.
PURPOSE: The optimal technique for reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is controversial. Regardless of surgical technique and graft choice, anatomic graft placement is essential for successful outcome. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the size and location of the insertions of the PCL using a computed tomography (CT) protocol. METHODS: The insertions in ten knees were marked in vitro with plastic markers. The CT examination was performed with the knee in extension. On the femur, the position of the center of the insertion site was evaluated relative to Blumensaat's line and the anterior articular surface. On the tibia, the location of the center of the insertion site was described relative to the borders of the tibial plateau and the retrospinal surface. RESULTS: The surface area of the femoral insertion measured 232 mm(-2) and was centered 8.9 mm from the roof of the intercondylar notch and 18.7 mm from the anterior articular cartilage surface. The surface area of the tibial insertion was 155 mm(2) and was centered 9.1 mm from the posterior border of the tibia on the retrospinal surface, 1.6 mm inferior to the plane of the tibial articular surface. This point was on average 49% of the way across the plateau relative to the medial edge of the plateau and 87% of the way across the plateau relative to the anterior edge. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography can provide detailed localization of the PCL attachment sites on the femur and tibia. Radiation exposure and cost may preclude routine use.
Authors: John A Bergfeld; Scott M Graham; Richard D Parker; Antonio D C Valdevit; Helen E Kambic Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-05-11 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Claude T Moorman; M Siobhan Murphy Zane; Sanjiv Bansai; Stephen J Cina; Thomas L Wickiewicz; Russell F Warren; Maria Kyriaki Kaseta Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: C D Harner; J W Xerogeanes; G A Livesay; G J Carlin; B A Smith; T Kusayama; S Kashiwaguchi; S L Woo Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 1995 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: E Cardis; M Vrijheid; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; F Bermann; G Cowper; J Fix; C Hacker; B Heinmiller; M Marshall; I Thierry-Chef; D Utterback; Y-O Ahn; E Amoros; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; J Bernar Solano; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklof; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R Habib; K Holan; H Hyvonen; A Kerekes; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Martuzzi; A Mastauskas; A Monnet; M Moser; M S Pearce; D B Richardson; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-06-29
Authors: E Cardis; E S Gilbert; L Carpenter; G Howe; I Kato; B K Armstrong; V Beral; G Cowper; A Douglas; J Fix Journal: Radiat Res Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Michael Osti; Doris Hierzer; Alessa Krawinkel; Thomas Hoffelner; Karl Peter Benedetto Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Joseph J Stuart; J H James Choi; Alison P Toth; Claude T Moorman; Dean C Taylor Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Tom Van Hoof; Michiel Cromheecke; Thomas Tampere; Katharina D'herde; Jan Victor; Peter C M Verdonk Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 4.342