Literature DB >> 25091116

Posterior cruciate ligament graft fixation angles, part 2: biomechanical evaluation for anatomic double-bundle reconstruction.

Nicholas I Kennedy1, Robert F LaPrade2, Mary T Goldsmith1, Scott C Faucett1, Matthew T Rasmussen1, Garrett A Coatney1, Lars Engebretsen3, Coen A Wijdicks4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have suggested that anatomic double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) reduces residual laxity compared with the intact state better than single-bundle PCLR. Although the anterolateral bundle (ALB) and posteromedial bundle (PMB) reportedly act codominantly, few studies have compared commonly used graft fixation angles and the influence that graft fixation angles have on overall graft forces and knee laxity. HYPOTHESIS: Graft fixation angle combinations of 0°/75° (PMB/ALB), 0°/90°, 0°/105°, 15°/75°, 15°/90°, and 15°/105° would significantly reduce knee laxity from the sectioned PCL state while preventing in vitro graft forces from being overloaded between any of the graft fixation angles. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Nine cadaveric knees were evaluated for the kinematics of the intact, PCL-sectioned, and DB PCLR techniques. The DB technique was varied by fixing the PMB and ALB grafts at the following 6 randomly ordered fixation angle combinations: 0°/75° (PMB/ALB), 0°/90°, 0°/105°, 15°/75°, 15°/90°, and 15°/105°. A 6 degrees of freedom robotic testing system subjected each specimen to an applied 134-N posterior tibial load at 0° to 120° of flexion and 5-N·m external, 5-N·m internal, and 10-N·m valgus rotation torques applied at 60°, 75°, 90°, 105°, and 120° of flexion. The ALB and PMB grafts were fixed to load cells that concurrently measured graft forces throughout kinematic testing. t tests compared the kinematics between groups, and 2-factor models assessed the contribution of ALB and PMB grafts after DB PCLR (P < .05).
RESULTS: Consistently, DB PCLR significantly reduced posterior translation compared with the sectioned PCL and was comparable with the intact state during applied posterior tibial loads at flexion angles of greater than 90°; a mean residual laxity of 1.5 mm remained compared with the intact state during applied posterior tibial loads. Additionally, fixing the PMB graft at 15° resulted in significantly larger PMB graft forces compared with fixation at 0° during applied posterior loading, internal rotation, external rotation, and valgus rotation. Similarly, fixing the ALB graft at 75° resulted in significantly larger ALB graft forces compared with fixation of the ALB graft at 90° or 105° during all loading conditions.
CONCLUSION: Fixation of the PMB graft at 0° to 15° and the ALB graft at 75° to 105° during DB PCLR were successful in significantly reducing knee laxity from the sectioned state. However, fixation of the PMB graft at 15° versus 0° resulted in significantly increased loads through the PMB graft, and fixation of the ALB graft at 75° versus 90° or 105° resulted in significantly increased loads through the ALB graft. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study found that all 6 fixation angle combinations significantly improved knee kinematics compared with the sectioned state at time zero; however, it is recommended that fixation of the PMB graft be performed at 0° because of the significant increases in PMB graft loading that occur with fixation at 15° and that fixation of the ALB graft be performed at 90° or 105° rather than 75° to minimize ALB graft forces, which could lead to graft attenuation or failure over time.
© 2014 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  PCL reconstruction; anterolateral bundle (ALB); double bundle; graft fixation angles; graft forces; knee kinematics; posterior cruciate ligament (PCL); posteromedial bundle (PMB)

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25091116     DOI: 10.1177/0363546514541226

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Double-Bundle, All-Inside Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Technique Using 2 Separate Autologous Grafts.

Authors:  Roy A G Hoogeslag; Bart W Oudelaar; Rianne Huis In't Veld; Reinoud W Brouwer
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-09-26

Review 3.  Posterior Cruciate Ligament: Anatomy and Biomechanics.

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

4.  Anatomic Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jorge Chahla; Gilbert Moatshe; Lars Engebretsen; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2017-02-08

5.  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

6.  Global variation in isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Derrick M Knapik; Varun Gopinatth; Garrett R Jackson; Jorge Chahla; Matthew V Smith; Matthew J Matava; Robert H Brophy
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2022-10-09

Review 7.  Graft Considerations in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Pierce Johnson; Sean M Mitchell; Simon Görtz
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-09

8.  Double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical analysis of simulated early motion and partial and full weightbearing on common reconstruction grafts.

Authors:  William R Mook; David Civitarese; Travis Lee Turnbull; Nicholas I Kennedy; Luke O'Brien; Jarod B Schoeberl; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Anatomic is better than isometric posterior cruciate ligament tunnel placement based upon in vivo simulation.

Authors:  Willem A Kernkamp; Axel J T Jens; Nathan H Varady; Ewoud R A van Arkel; Rob G H H Nelissen; Peter D Asnis; Robert F LaPrade; Samuel K Van de Velde; Guoan Li
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 10.  Cutting-Edge Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Principles.

Authors:  Foley J Schreier; Mark T Banovetz; Ariel N Rodriguez; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2021-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.