BACKGROUND: Rotational kinematics has become an important consideration after ACL reconstruction because of its possible influence on knee degeneration. However, it remains unknown whether ACL reconstruction can restore both rotational kinematics and normal joint contact patterns, especially during functional activities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether knee kinematics (tibial anterior translation and axial rotation) and joint contact mechanics (tibiofemoral sliding distance) would be restored by double-bundle (DB) or single-bundle (SB) reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 17 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction by the SB (n = 7) or DB (n = 10) procedure. We used dynamic stereo x-ray to capture biplane radiographic images of the knee during downhill treadmill running. Tibial anterior translation, axial rotation, and joint sliding distance in the medial and lateral compartments were compared between reconstructed and contralateral knees in both SB and DB groups. RESULTS: We observed reduced anterior tibial translation and increased knee rotation in the reconstructed knees compared to the contralateral knees in both SB and DB groups. The mean joint sliding distance on the medial compartment was larger in the reconstructed knees than in the contralateral knees for both the SB group (9.5 ± 3.9 mm versus 7.5 ± 4.3 mm) and the DB group (11.1 ± 1.3 mm versus 7.9 ± 3.8 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Neither ACL reconstruction procedure restored normal knee kinematics or medial joint sliding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Further study is necessary to understand the clinical significance of abnormal joint contact, identify the responsible mechanisms, and optimize reconstruction procedures for restoring normal joint mechanics after ACL injury.
BACKGROUND: Rotational kinematics has become an important consideration after ACL reconstruction because of its possible influence on knee degeneration. However, it remains unknown whether ACL reconstruction can restore both rotational kinematics and normal joint contact patterns, especially during functional activities. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether knee kinematics (tibial anterior translation and axial rotation) and joint contact mechanics (tibiofemoral sliding distance) would be restored by double-bundle (DB) or single-bundle (SB) reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 17 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction by the SB (n = 7) or DB (n = 10) procedure. We used dynamic stereo x-ray to capture biplane radiographic images of the knee during downhill treadmill running. Tibial anterior translation, axial rotation, and joint sliding distance in the medial and lateral compartments were compared between reconstructed and contralateral knees in both SB and DB groups. RESULTS: We observed reduced anterior tibial translation and increased knee rotation in the reconstructed knees compared to the contralateral knees in both SB and DB groups. The mean joint sliding distance on the medial compartment was larger in the reconstructed knees than in the contralateral knees for both the SB group (9.5 ± 3.9 mm versus 7.5 ± 4.3 mm) and the DB group (11.1 ± 1.3 mm versus 7.9 ± 3.8 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Neither ACL reconstruction procedure restored normal knee kinematics or medial joint sliding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Further study is necessary to understand the clinical significance of abnormal joint contact, identify the responsible mechanisms, and optimize reconstruction procedures for restoring normal joint mechanics after ACL injury.
Authors: Carola F van Eck; Verena M Schreiber; T Thomas Liu; Freddie H Fu Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Asheesh Bedi; Volker Musahl; Padhraig O'Loughlin; Travis Maak; Musa Citak; Peter Dixon; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-06-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jessica M Deneweth; Michael J Bey; Scott G McLean; Terrence R Lock; Patricia A Kolowich; Scott Tashman Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: E S Abebe; G M Utturkar; D C Taylor; C E Spritzer; J P Kim; C T Moorman; W E Garrett; L E DeFrate Journal: J Biomech Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Andrea Hemmerich; Willem van der Merwe; Marijka Batterham; Christopher L Vaughan Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-10-17 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: David J Heckelsmiller; M James Rudert; Thomas E Baer; Douglas R Pedersen; Douglas C Fredericks; Jessica E Goetz Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Emily S Gardinier; Stephanie Di Stasi; Kurt Manal; Thomas S Buchanan; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jillian E Beveridge; Benedikt L Proffen; Naga Padmini Karamchedu; Kaitlyn E Chin; Jakob T Sieker; Gary J Badger; Ata M Kiapour; Martha M Murray; Braden C Fleming Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Christopher V Nagelli; Stephanie Di Stasi; Samuel C Wordeman; Albert Chen; Rachel Tatarski; Joshua Hoffman; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 3.638