Mark Clatworthy1, Steffen Sauer2, Tim Roberts3. 1. Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. clats@mac.com. 2. Aarhaus University Hospital, Aarhaus, Denmark. 3. Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is proposed that central femoral ACL graft placement better controls rotational stability. This study evaluates the consequence of changing the femoral tunnel position from the AM position drilled transtibially to the central position drilled transportally. The difference in ACL graft failure is reported. METHODS: This prospective consecutive patient single surgeon study compares the revision rates of 1016 transtibial hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 6-15 years with 464 transportal hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 2-6 years. Sex, age, graft size, time to surgery, meniscal repair and meniscectomy data were evaluated as contributing factors for ACL graft failure to enable a multivariate analysis. To adjust for the variable follow-up a multivariate hazard ratio, failure per 100 graft years and Kaplan-Meier survivorship was determined. RESULTS: With transtibial ACLR 52/1016 failed (5.1%). With transportal ACLR 32/464 failed (6.9%). Significant differences between transportal and transtibial ACLR were seen for graft diameter, time to surgery, medial meniscal repair rates and meniscal tissue remaining after meniscectomy. Adjusting for these the multivariate hazard ratio was 2.3 times higher in the transportal group (p = 0.001). Central tunnel placement resulted in a significantly 3.5 times higher revision rate compared to an anteromedial tunnel placement per 100 graft years (p = 0.001). Five year survival was 980/1016 (96.5%) for transtibial versus 119/131 (90.5%) for transportal. Transportal ACLR also showed a significantly higher earlier failure rate with 20/32 (61%) of the transportal failing in the first year compared with 14/52 (27%) for transtibial. (p = 0.001.) CONCLUSION: Transportal central femoral tunnel ACLR has a higher failure rate and earlier failure than transtibial AM femoral tunnel ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-prospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: It is proposed that central femoral ACL graft placement better controls rotational stability. This study evaluates the consequence of changing the femoral tunnel position from the AM position drilled transtibially to the central position drilled transportally. The difference in ACL graft failure is reported. METHODS: This prospective consecutive patient single surgeon study compares the revision rates of 1016 transtibial hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 6-15 years with 464 transportal hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 2-6 years. Sex, age, graft size, time to surgery, meniscal repair and meniscectomy data were evaluated as contributing factors for ACL graft failure to enable a multivariate analysis. To adjust for the variable follow-up a multivariate hazard ratio, failure per 100 graft years and Kaplan-Meier survivorship was determined. RESULTS: With transtibial ACLR 52/1016 failed (5.1%). With transportal ACLR 32/464 failed (6.9%). Significant differences between transportal and transtibial ACLR were seen for graft diameter, time to surgery, medial meniscal repair rates and meniscal tissue remaining after meniscectomy. Adjusting for these the multivariate hazard ratio was 2.3 times higher in the transportal group (p = 0.001). Central tunnel placement resulted in a significantly 3.5 times higher revision rate compared to an anteromedial tunnel placement per 100 graft years (p = 0.001). Five year survival was 980/1016 (96.5%) for transtibial versus 119/131 (90.5%) for transportal. Transportal ACLR also showed a significantly higher earlier failure rate with 20/32 (61%) of the transportal failing in the first year compared with 14/52 (27%) for transtibial. (p = 0.001.) CONCLUSION: Transportal central femoral tunnel ACLR has a higher failure rate and earlier failure than transtibial AM femoral tunnel ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-prospective comparative study.
Authors: John C Loh; Yukihisa Fukuda; Eiichi Tsuda; Richard J Steadman; Freddie H Fu; Savio L Y Woo Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Freddie H Fu; Carola F van Eck; Scott Tashman; James J Irrgang; Morey S Moreland Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Eziamaka C Okafor; Gangadhar M Utturkar; Margaret R Widmyer; Ermias S Abebe; Amber T Collins; Dean C Taylor; Charles E Spritzer; C T Moorman; William E Garrett; Louis E DeFrate Journal: J Biomech Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Peter J C McEwen; Milford McArthur; Sarah G Brereton; William B O'Callaghan; Matthew P R Wilkinson Journal: Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol Date: 2020-10-07
Authors: Marco Cuzzolin; Davide Previtali; Marco Delcogliano; Giuseppe Filardo; Christian Candrian; Alberto Grassi Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-07-12