A Maeyama1, Y Hoshino2, Y Kato2, A Debandi2, P Lertwanich2, J H Wang2, P Smolinski3, F H Fu4,5,6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Japan. 2. Departmernt of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Departmernt of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ffu@upmc.edu. 5. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ffu@upmc.edu. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. ffu@upmc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the different types of ACL reconstructions in terms of knee dynamic laxity evaluated by acceleration. METHODS: Sixteen fresh frozen cadaveric knees were used. Pivot shift test was manually performed while monitoring the tibial acceleration by use of a triaxial accelerometer. The test was repeated before and after the ACL resection and reconstruction. Three types of ACL reconstruction were tested: (1) Anatomic Single-Bundle reconstruction (n = 8), the graft was placed at the center of the ACL footprint for the both femoral and tibial sides (tunnel diameter: 8mm); (2) Conventional Single-Bundle reconstruction (n = 8), the graft was placed from the tibial PL footprint to femoral high AM position (tunnel diameter: 8mm) and (3) Anatomic Double-Bundle reconstruction (n = 8). The acceleration in each of three x-y-z directions and the overall magnitude of acceleration was calculated to evaluate dynamic rotational laxity and compared between different ACL reconstructions. RESULTS: The overall magnitude of acceleration was significantly different between ACL intact and deficient knees (p < 0.0001). The acceleration was reduced by the DB ACL reconstruction to the intact level (n.s.), but the two SB ACL reconstruction failed to achieve the intact level of the acceleration (p = 0.0002non-anatomic SB, p < 0.0001 anatomic SB). CONCLUSION: The anatomic DB reconstruction better restores dynamic rotational laxity when compared to the SB ACL reconstructions no matter if the tunnel placement was anatomic. The anatomic DB reconstruction better restores dynamic rotational laxity when compared to both anatomic and non-anatomic SB ACL reconstruction. For this reason anatomic DB ACL reconstruction is recommended for cases where rotational laxity is an issue.
PURPOSE: To compare the different types of ACL reconstructions in terms of knee dynamic laxity evaluated by acceleration. METHODS: Sixteen fresh frozen cadaveric knees were used. Pivot shift test was manually performed while monitoring the tibial acceleration by use of a triaxial accelerometer. The test was repeated before and after the ACL resection and reconstruction. Three types of ACL reconstruction were tested: (1) Anatomic Single-Bundle reconstruction (n = 8), the graft was placed at the center of the ACL footprint for the both femoral and tibial sides (tunnel diameter: 8mm); (2) Conventional Single-Bundle reconstruction (n = 8), the graft was placed from the tibial PL footprint to femoral high AM position (tunnel diameter: 8mm) and (3) Anatomic Double-Bundle reconstruction (n = 8). The acceleration in each of three x-y-z directions and the overall magnitude of acceleration was calculated to evaluate dynamic rotational laxity and compared between different ACL reconstructions. RESULTS: The overall magnitude of acceleration was significantly different between ACL intact and deficient knees (p < 0.0001). The acceleration was reduced by the DB ACL reconstruction to the intact level (n.s.), but the two SB ACL reconstruction failed to achieve the intact level of the acceleration (p = 0.0002non-anatomic SB, p < 0.0001 anatomic SB). CONCLUSION: The anatomic DB reconstruction better restores dynamic rotational laxity when compared to the SB ACL reconstructions no matter if the tunnel placement was anatomic. The anatomic DB reconstruction better restores dynamic rotational laxity when compared to both anatomic and non-anatomic SB ACL reconstruction. For this reason anatomic DB ACL reconstruction is recommended for cases where rotational laxity is an issue.
Authors: Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman; Karen K Briggs; William I Sterett; Richard J Hawkins Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Apr-May Impact factor: 6.202