Adam Hart1, Thiru Sivakumaran2, Mark Burman1, Tom Powell2, Paul A Martineau1. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent emphasis on anatomic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is well supported by clinical and biomechanical research. Unfortunately, the location of the native femoral footprint can be difficult to see at the time of surgery, and the accuracy of current techniques to perform anatomic reconstruction is unclear. PURPOSE: To use 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3D MRI) to prospectively evaluate patients with torn ACLs before and after reconstruction and thereby assess the accuracy of graft position on the femoral condyle. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Forty-one patients with unilateral ACL tears were recruited into the study. Each patient underwent 3D MRI of both the injured and uninjured knees before surgery. The contralateral (uninjured) knee was used to define the patient's native footprint. Patients then underwent ACL reconstruction, and the injured knee underwent reimaging after surgery. The location and percentage overlap of the reconstructed femoral footprint were compared with the patient's native footprint. RESULTS: The center of the native ACL femoral footprint was a mean 12.0 ± 2.6 mm distal and 9.3 ± 2.2 mm anterior to the apex of the deep cartilage. The position of the reconstructed graft was significantly different, with a mean distance of 10.8 ± 2.2 mm distal ( P = .02) and 8.0 ± 2.3 mm anterior ( P = .01). The mean distance between the center of the graft and the center of the native ACL femoral footprint (error distance) was 3.6 ± 2.6 mm. Comparing error distances among the 4 surgeons demonstrated no significant difference ( P = .10). On average, 67% of the graft overlapped within the native ACL femoral footprint. CONCLUSION: Despite contemporary techniques and a concerted effort to perform anatomic ACL reconstruction by 4 experienced sports orthopaedic surgeons, the position of the femoral footprint was significantly different between the native and reconstructed ACLs. Furthermore, each surgeon used a different technique, but all had comparable errors in their tunnel placements.
BACKGROUND: The recent emphasis on anatomic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is well supported by clinical and biomechanical research. Unfortunately, the location of the native femoral footprint can be difficult to see at the time of surgery, and the accuracy of current techniques to perform anatomic reconstruction is unclear. PURPOSE: To use 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3D MRI) to prospectively evaluate patients with torn ACLs before and after reconstruction and thereby assess the accuracy of graft position on the femoral condyle. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Forty-one patients with unilateral ACL tears were recruited into the study. Each patient underwent 3D MRI of both the injured and uninjured knees before surgery. The contralateral (uninjured) knee was used to define the patient's native footprint. Patients then underwent ACL reconstruction, and the injured knee underwent reimaging after surgery. The location and percentage overlap of the reconstructed femoral footprint were compared with the patient's native footprint. RESULTS: The center of the native ACL femoral footprint was a mean 12.0 ± 2.6 mm distal and 9.3 ± 2.2 mm anterior to the apex of the deep cartilage. The position of the reconstructed graft was significantly different, with a mean distance of 10.8 ± 2.2 mm distal ( P = .02) and 8.0 ± 2.3 mm anterior ( P = .01). The mean distance between the center of the graft and the center of the native ACL femoral footprint (error distance) was 3.6 ± 2.6 mm. Comparing error distances among the 4 surgeons demonstrated no significant difference ( P = .10). On average, 67% of the graft overlapped within the native ACL femoral footprint. CONCLUSION: Despite contemporary techniques and a concerted effort to perform anatomic ACL reconstruction by 4 experienced sports orthopaedic surgeons, the position of the femoral footprint was significantly different between the native and reconstructed ACLs. Furthermore, each surgeon used a different technique, but all had comparable errors in their tunnel placements.
Authors: Carolina Raposo; João P Barreto; Cristóvão Sousa; Luis Ribeiro; Rui Melo; João Pedro Oliveira; Pedro Marques; Fernando Fonseca; David Barrett Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2019-06-29 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Carl Laverdiere; Drew Schupbach; Justin Schupbach; Eric Harvey; Mathieu Boily; Mark Burman; Paul A Martineau Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-07-29
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
Authors: Yousef Marwan; Jens Böttcher; Carl Laverdière; Rehana Jaffer; Mark Burman; Mathieu Boily; Paul A Martineau Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-03-27
Authors: Jason Corban; Justin-Pierre Lorange; Carl Laverdiere; Jason Khoury; Gil Rachevsky; Mark Burman; Paul Andre Martineau Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-07-02