PURPOSE: It has been reported that technical error in positioning the graft tunnel is the most common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate femoral and tibial tunnel positions and intra-articular graft orientation of primary ACL reconstruction in patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction. We postulated that this patient cohort had a nonanatomically positioned tunnel and graft orientation. METHODS: Twenty-six patients who had undergone a revision ACL were investigated. Clinical magnetic resonance (MR) images prior to revision were analysed. Three-dimensional models of bones and tunnels on the femur and tibia were created. Intra-articular graft orientation was measured in axial, sagittal and coronal planes. Graft positions were measured on the tibial plateau as a percentage from anterior to posterior and medial to lateral; graft positions on the femur were measured using the quadrant method. RESULTS: Sagittal elevation angle for failed ACL reconstruction graft (69.6° ± 13.4°) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of the native anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles of the ACL (AM 56.2° ± 6.1°, PL 55.5° ± 8.1°). In the transverse plane, the deviation angle of the failed graft (37.3° ± 21.0°) was significantly greater than native ACL bundles. The tibial tunnel in this patient cohort was placed posteromedially and medially to the anatomical AM and PL bundles, respectively. The femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly to the anatomical AM and PL bundles. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that both the tibial and femoral tunnel positions and consequently the intra-articular graft orientation in this patient group with failed ACL reconstruction were nonanatomical when compared with native ACL values. The results can be used to improve tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction.
PURPOSE: It has been reported that technical error in positioning the graft tunnel is the most common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate femoral and tibial tunnel positions and intra-articular graft orientation of primary ACL reconstruction in patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction. We postulated that this patient cohort had a nonanatomically positioned tunnel and graft orientation. METHODS: Twenty-six patients who had undergone a revision ACL were investigated. Clinical magnetic resonance (MR) images prior to revision were analysed. Three-dimensional models of bones and tunnels on the femur and tibia were created. Intra-articular graft orientation was measured in axial, sagittal and coronal planes. Graft positions were measured on the tibial plateau as a percentage from anterior to posterior and medial to lateral; graft positions on the femur were measured using the quadrant method. RESULTS: Sagittal elevation angle for failed ACL reconstruction graft (69.6° ± 13.4°) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of the native anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles of the ACL (AM 56.2° ± 6.1°, PL 55.5° ± 8.1°). In the transverse plane, the deviation angle of the failed graft (37.3° ± 21.0°) was significantly greater than native ACL bundles. The tibial tunnel in this patient cohort was placed posteromedially and medially to the anatomical AM and PL bundles, respectively. The femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly to the anatomical AM and PL bundles. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that both the tibial and femoral tunnel positions and consequently the intra-articular graft orientation in this patient group with failed ACL reconstruction were nonanatomical when compared with native ACL values. The results can be used to improve tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction.
Authors: Sean F Scanlan; Katerina Blazek; Ajit M W Chaudhari; Marc R Safran; Thomas P Andriacchi Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Ermias S Abebe; C T Moorman; T Scott Dziedzic; Charles E Spritzer; R Lee Cothran; Dean C Taylor; William E Garrett; Louis E DeFrate Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-08-17 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Andrew D Pearle; Fintan J Shannon; Carinne Granchi; Thomas L Wickiewicz; Russell F Warren Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-04-03 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Guoan Li; Jeremy M Moses; Ramprasad Papannagari; Neil P Pathare; Louis E DeFrate; Thomas J Gill Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Samuel K Van de Velde; Jeffrey T Bingham; Ali Hosseini; Michal Kozanek; Louis E DeFrate; Thomas J Gill; Guoan Li Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-12
Authors: Michal Kozanek; Ali Hosseini; Fang Liu; Samuel K Van de Velde; Thomas J Gill; Harry E Rubash; Guoan Li Journal: J Biomech Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: J T Bingham; R Papannagari; S K Van de Velde; C Gross; T J Gill; D T Felson; H E Rubash; G Li Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Rodrigo Kancelskis Prado; Panagiotis G Ntagiopoulos; Patrícia M B Fucs; Nilson Roberto Severino; David Dejour Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Gonzalo Samitier; Alejandro I Marcano; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Ramon Cugat; Kevin W Farmer; Michael W Moser Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2015-10
Authors: Willem A Kernkamp; Nathan H Varady; Jing-Sheng Li; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Peter D Asnis; Ewoud R A van Arkel; Rob G H H Nelissen; Thomas J Gill; Samuel K Van de Velde; Guoan Li Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.772