PURPOSE: To compare the time-zero stability of an anatomic anteromedial (AM) single-bundle ACL reconstruction to an anatomic central (CTR) single-bundle ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Twelve (6 paired) hip to knee cadaveric specimens were studied. Using custom ACL computer navigation software, a Lachman test and a previously validated, navigated mechanized pivot shift test were performed on 4 separate experimental groups in each specimen: (1) intact ACL, (2) ACL deficient with total medial and lateral meniscectomy, (3) following anatomic AM single-bundle ACL reconstruction, and (4) after anatomic CTR single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Maximum anterior tibial translation in each group was measured. RESULTS: Lachman: No significant difference was observed between the AM and CTR reconstructions (n.s.) or between reconstruction and the intact ACL (3.4 ± 1.7 mm) (n.s.). Pivot Shift: Both the AM and CTR ACL reconstructions significantly reduced anterior translation relative to the ACL/menisci-deficient condition (lateral compartment: 8.9 ± 3.8 mm and 6.75 ± 4.6 mm vs. 17.25 ± 3.5 mm, respectively; P < 0.001 and medial compartment: -3.0 ± 5.3 mm vs. -3.7 ± 5.7 mm vs. 6.2 ± 6.7 mm, P < 0.05). There was also a significant difference between the AM (P < 0.001) and CTR (P < 0.05) ACL reconstructions and the intact ACL (2.8 ± 4.4 mm) for lateral compartment translation. Further, no difference was found between lateral or medial compartment translations in the AM versus CTR reconstructions (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: It has been shown that there was no difference in the time-zero biomechanical stability between an anatomic anteromedial and anatomic central single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Given the current debate on the best anatomic ACL reconstruction technique, anatomic socket position in either the anteromedial or central locations provides similar time-zero biomechanics.
PURPOSE: To compare the time-zero stability of an anatomic anteromedial (AM) single-bundle ACL reconstruction to an anatomic central (CTR) single-bundle ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Twelve (6 paired) hip to knee cadaveric specimens were studied. Using custom ACL computer navigation software, a Lachman test and a previously validated, navigated mechanized pivot shift test were performed on 4 separate experimental groups in each specimen: (1) intact ACL, (2) ACL deficient with total medial and lateral meniscectomy, (3) following anatomic AM single-bundle ACL reconstruction, and (4) after anatomic CTR single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Maximum anterior tibial translation in each group was measured. RESULTS: Lachman: No significant difference was observed between the AM and CTR reconstructions (n.s.) or between reconstruction and the intact ACL (3.4 ± 1.7 mm) (n.s.). Pivot Shift: Both the AM and CTR ACL reconstructions significantly reduced anterior translation relative to the ACL/menisci-deficient condition (lateral compartment: 8.9 ± 3.8 mm and 6.75 ± 4.6 mm vs. 17.25 ± 3.5 mm, respectively; P < 0.001 and medial compartment: -3.0 ± 5.3 mm vs. -3.7 ± 5.7 mm vs. 6.2 ± 6.7 mm, P < 0.05). There was also a significant difference between the AM (P < 0.001) and CTR (P < 0.05) ACL reconstructions and the intact ACL (2.8 ± 4.4 mm) for lateral compartment translation. Further, no difference was found between lateral or medial compartment translations in the AM versus CTR reconstructions (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: It has been shown that there was no difference in the time-zero biomechanical stability between an anatomic anteromedial and anatomic central single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Given the current debate on the best anatomic ACL reconstruction technique, anatomic socket position in either the anteromedial or central locations provides similar time-zero biomechanics.
Authors: Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman; Karen K Briggs; William I Sterett; Richard J Hawkins Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Apr-May Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Robert H Brophy; James E Voos; Fintan J Shannon; Carinne C Granchi; Thomas L Wickiewicz; Russell F Warren; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-07-31 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: Andrea Ferretti; Edoardo Monaco; Luca Labianca; Angelo De Carli; Barbara Maestri; Fabio Conteduca Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Travis G Maak; Asheesh Bedi; Bradley S Raphael; Musa Citak; Eduardo M Suero; Thomas Wickiewicz; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Volker Musahl; Susan S Jordan; Alexis C Colvin; Michael J Tranovich; James J Irrgang; Christopher D Harner Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: S Aldrian; P Valentin; B Wondrasch; I Krusche-Mandl; R C Ostermann; P Platzer; M Hofbauer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: S Zaffagnini; F Urrizola; C Signorelli; A Grassi; T Roberti Di Sarsina; G A Lucidi; G M Marcheggiani Muccioli; T Bonanzinga; M Marcacci Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Tiago Lazzaretti Fernandes; Douglas Badillo Ribeiro; Diogo Cristo da Rocha; Cyro Albuquerque; César Augusto Martins Pereira; André Pedrinelli; Arnaldo José Hernandez Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2014-08-28
Authors: Camilo Partezani Helito; Adnan Saithna; Marcelo B Bonadio; Matt Daggett; Edoardo Monaco; Marco K Demange; Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2018-01-19