Literature DB >> 23144369

Radiographic landmarks for tunnel positioning in posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

Adam M Johannsen1, Colin J Anderson, Coen A Wijdicks, Lars Engebretsen, Robert F LaPrade.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Consistent radiographic guidelines for tunnel placement in single- or double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstructions are not well defined. Quantitative guidelines reporting the location of the individual PCL bundle attachments would aid in intraoperative tunnel placement and postoperative assessment of a PCL reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: Consistent and reproducible measurements in relation to radiographic landmarks for the entire PCL and its individual bundle attachments are achievable. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: The femoral and tibial PCL bundle attachment centers of 20 nonpaired fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were labeled using radio-opaque spheres and the attachment areas were labeled using barium sulfate. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of the femur and tibia were obtained, and measurements of the distances between the PCL bundle centers and landmarks were acquired.
RESULTS: On the AP femur view, the anterolateral bundle (ALB) and posteromedial bundle (PMB) centers were 34.1 ± 3.0 mm and 29.2 ± 3.0 mm lateral to the most medial border of the medial femoral condyle, respectively. The lateral femur images revealed that the ALB center was 17.4 ± 1.7 mm and the PMB center was 23.9 ± 2.7 mm posteroproximal to a line perpendicular to the Blumensaat line that intersected the anterior margin of the medial femoral condyle cortex. Anteroposterior tibia images revealed that the ALB and PMB centers were located 0.2 ± 2.1 mm proximal and 4.9 ± 2.9 mm distal to the proximal joint line, respectively. The PCL attachment center was 1.6 ± 2.5 mm distal to the proximal joint line. On the lateral tibia view, the ALB center was 8.4 ± 1.8 mm, the PCL attachment center was 5.5 ± 1.7 mm, and the PMB center was 2.5 ± 1.5 mm superior to the champagne glass drop-off of the posterior tibia.
CONCLUSION: Radiographic measurements from several clinically relevant views of the femur and tibia were reproducible with regard to the anatomic locations of the ALB and PMB centers. The measurements from the lateral femur and tibia views provided the most clinically pertinent radiographic measurements intraoperatively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study established a set of clinically relevant radiographic guidelines for anatomic reconstruction of the PCL. The parameters set forth in this study can be used in both the intraoperative and postoperative settings for both single- and double-bundle PCL reconstructions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23144369     DOI: 10.1177/0363546512465072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  29 in total

1.  Radiographic identification of the primary structures of the ankle syndesmosis.

Authors:  Brady T Williams; Evan W James; Kyle A Jisa; C Thomas Haytmanek; Robert F LaPrade; Thomas O Clanton
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Clinically relevant anatomy and what anatomic reconstruction means.

Authors:  Robert F LaPrade; Samuel G Moulton; Marco Nitri; Werner Mueller; Lars Engebretsen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Do Changes in Pelvic Rotation and Tilt Affect Measurement of the Anterior Center Edge Angle on False Profile Radiographs? A Cadaveric Study.

Authors:  Sara M Putnam; John C Clohisy; Jeffrey J Nepple
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The predictive effect of anatomic femoral and tibial graft tunnel placement in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on functional and radiological outcome.

Authors:  Michael Osti; Doris Hierzer; Alessa Krawinkel; Thomas Hoffelner; Karl Peter Benedetto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  How to avoid collision between PCL and MCL femoral tunnels during a simultaneous reconstruction.

Authors:  Lawrence Camarda; Emanuele Grassedonio; Michele Lauria; Massimo Midiri; Michele D'Arienzo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  Posterior Cruciate Ligament: Anatomy and Biomechanics.

Authors:  Stephanie L Logterman; Frank B Wydra; Rachel M Frank
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-09

7.  The biomechanical characteristics of arthroscopic tibial inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: in vitro comparison of tibial graft tunnel placement.

Authors:  Karl Peter Benedetto; Thomas Hoffelner; Michael Osti
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Skeletal imaging following reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: in vivo comparison of fluoroscopy, radiography, and computed tomography.

Authors:  Michael Osti; Alessa Krawinkel; Karl Peter Benedetto
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Radiographic landmarks for surgical reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament of the knee.

Authors:  Alex J Rezansoff; Scott Caterine; Luke Spencer; Michael N Tran; Robert B Litchfield; Alan M Getgood
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Anatomic Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jorge Chahla; Marco Nitri; David Civitarese; Chase S Dean; Samuel G Moulton; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-02-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.