Literature DB >> 27484876

Graft position in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial versus transtibial technique.

Olcay Guler1, Mahir Mahırogulları2, Serhat Mutlu3, Mehmet H Cercı4, Ali Seker2, Selami Cakmak5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: When treating anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, the position of the ACL graft plays a key role in regaining postoperative knee function and physiologic kinematics. In this study, we aimed to compare graft angle, graft position in tibial tunnel, and tibial and femoral tunnel positions in patients operated with anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) methods to those of contralateral healthy knees.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with ipsilateral hamstring tendon autograft were included. Of these, 23 and 25 were treated by AM and TT techniques, respectively. MRI was performed at 18.4 and 19.7 months postoperatively in AM and TT groups. Graft angles, graft positions in the tibial tunnel and alignment of tibial and femoral tunnels were noted and compared in these two groups. The sagittal graft insertion tibia midpoint distance (SGON) has been used for evaluation of graft position in tunnel.
RESULTS: Sagittal ACL graft angles in operated and healthy knees of AM patients were 57.78° and 46.80° (p < 0.01). With respect to TT patients, ACL graft angle was 58.87° and 70.04° on sagittal and frontal planes in operated knees versus 47.38° and 61.82° in healthy knees (p < 0.001). ACL graft angle was significantly different between the groups on both sagittal and frontal planes (p < 0.001). Sagittal graft insertion tibia midpoint distance ratio was 0.51 and 0.48 % in the operated and healthy knees of AM group (p < 0.001) and 0.51 and 0.48 % in TT group (p < 0.001). Sagittal tibial tunnel midpoint distance ratio did not differ from sagittal graft insertion tibia midpoint distance of healthy knees in either group. Femoral tunnel clock position was better in AM [right knee 10:19 o'clock-face position (310° ± 4°); left knee 1:40 (50° ± 3°)] compared with TT group [right knee 10:48 (324° ± 5°); left knee 1:04 (32° ± 4°)]. With respect to the sagittal plane, the anterior-posterior position of femoral tunnel was better in AM patients. Lysholm scores and range of motion of operated knees in the AM and TT groups showed no significant difference (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Precise reconstruction on sagittal plane cannot be obtained with either AM or TT technique. However, AM technique is superior to TT technique in terms of anatomical graft positioning. Posterior-placed grafts in tibial tunnel prevent ACL reconstruction, although tibial tunnel is drilled on sagittal plane.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Anteromedial technique; Lysholm scoring; Single-bundle ACL reconstruction; Tibial tunnel

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27484876     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-016-2532-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  10 in total

1.  How Important is the Tunnel Position in Outcomes Post-ACL Reconstruction: A 3D CT-Based Study.

Authors:  Vikram A Mhaskar; Yogesh Jain; Pankaj Soni; Rajendra Fiske; Jitendra Maheshwari
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 1.033

2.  Does the position of interference screw in tibial tunnel effect anatomic orientation in single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?

Authors:  Bancha Chernchujit; Sumit Agrawal; Bordee Sukhapradit
Journal:  Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol       Date:  2020-07-16

3.  High incidence of partially anatomic tunnel placement in primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Andrea Achtnich; Francesco Ranuccio; Lukas Willinger; Jonas Pogorzelski; Andreas B Imhoff; Sepp Braun; Elmar Herbst
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  ACL Reconstruction Graft Angle and Outcomes: Transtibial vs Anteromedial Reconstruction.

Authors:  Austin V Stone; Jorge Chahla; Brandon J Manderle; Alexander Beletsky; Charles A Bush-Joseph; Nikhil N Verma
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-08-09

5.  Computed Tomography Assessment of Anatomic Graft Placement After ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of Grid and Angle Measurements.

Authors:  Anagha P Parkar; Miraude E A P M Adriaensen; Lasse M Giil; Eirik Solheim
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-03-19

6.  Reliability of Anatomic Bony Landmark Localization of the ACL Femoral Footprint Using 3D MRI.

Authors:  Thiru Sivakumaran; Rehana Jaffer; Yousef Marwan; Adam Hart; Arnold Radu; Mark Burman; Paul A Martineau; Tom Powell
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-10-20

7.  Transtibial versus independent femoral tunnel drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evaluation of femoral aperture positioning.

Authors:  Haitham K Haroun; Maged M Abouelsoud; Mohamed R Allam; Mahmoud M Abdelwahab
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Effects of modified trans-tibial versus trans-portal technique on stress patterns around the femoral tunnel in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction with different knee flexion angles using finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hyun-Soo Moon; Si Young Song; Ji Ung Oh; Young-Jin Seo
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 2.562

Review 9.  Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Marios Loucas; Rafael Loucas; Riccardo D'Ambrosi; Michael Elias Hantes
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-07-02

10.  Tibiofemoral joint contact area and stress after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transtibial versus anteromedial portal drilling techniques.

Authors:  Chunhui Liu; Yingpeng Wang; Zhongli Li; Ji Li; Hao Zhang; Yangmu Fu; Kuan Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 2.359

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.