Kaori Nakamura1, Tomomasa Nakamura1, Masafumi Horie1, Hiroki Katagiri1,2, Koji Otabe2, Yusuke Nakagawa1,2, Masaki Amemiya1, Ichiro Sekiya2, Takeshi Muneta1, Hideyuki Koga3,4. 1. Department of Joint Surgery and Sports Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital of Medicine, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan. 3. Department of Joint Surgery and Sports Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan. koga.orj@tmd.ac.jp. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital of Medicine, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan. koga.orj@tmd.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the position and direction of femoral and tibial tunnels for both the anteromedial bundle (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB) among three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques, transtibial (TT), transportal (TP), and outside-in (OI) techniques, in anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction to clarify advantages and disadvantages of each technique. METHODS:One-hundred and thirty-nine patients underwentprimary ACL reconstruction with an autologous semitendinosus tendon in our institution between 2014 and 2016. Thirteen patients were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. Of the 126 patients, 98 patients agreed to be included in this study. Patients were then randomized into three groups according to the femoral tunnel drilling technique; the TT, TP, and OI groups. Femoral and tibial tunnel angles and positions were measured using three-dimensional computed tomography. RESULTS:Of patients who agreed to be included in this study, eight patients (seven in TT and one in OI) were excluded since the femoral tunnel could not be created at the intended position. Eighty-six patients (29 in TT, 29 in TP, and 28 in OI) were included for the analyses. Tunnel angles, as well as tunnel lengths, had significant differences among different techniques depending on each technique's characteristics. In terms of tunnel position, femoral tunnel positions of both the AMB and PLB in the TT group were significantly higher than those in the TP group (AMB: p = 0.003, PLB: p = 0.001), and the PLB tunnel position in the TP group had significantly smaller vaciance than that in the TT group (p = 0.004) and OI group (0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The femoral tunnel positions created by the TT technique were significantly higher, with larger variance, than the TP technique in double-bundle ACL reconstruction, although the positions seemed to be within anatomical footprint. In addition, there were several cases in which femoral tunnels could not be created at the intended position by the TT technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the position and direction of femoral and tibial tunnels for both the anteromedial bundle (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB) among three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques, transtibial (TT), transportal (TP), and outside-in (OI) techniques, in anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction to clarify advantages and disadvantages of each technique. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-nine patients underwent primary ACL reconstruction with an autologous semitendinosus tendon in our institution between 2014 and 2016. Thirteen patients were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. Of the 126 patients, 98 patients agreed to be included in this study. Patients were then randomized into three groups according to the femoral tunnel drilling technique; the TT, TP, and OI groups. Femoral and tibial tunnel angles and positions were measured using three-dimensional computed tomography. RESULTS: Of patients who agreed to be included in this study, eight patients (seven in TT and one in OI) were excluded since the femoral tunnel could not be created at the intended position. Eighty-six patients (29 in TT, 29 in TP, and 28 in OI) were included for the analyses. Tunnel angles, as well as tunnel lengths, had significant differences among different techniques depending on each technique's characteristics. In terms of tunnel position, femoral tunnel positions of both the AMB and PLB in the TT group were significantly higher than those in the TP group (AMB: p = 0.003, PLB: p = 0.001), and the PLB tunnel position in the TP group had significantly smaller vaciance than that in the TT group (p = 0.004) and OI group (0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The femoral tunnel positions created by the TT technique were significantly higher, with larger variance, than the TP technique in double-bundle ACL reconstruction, although the positions seemed to be within anatomical footprint. In addition, there were several cases in which femoral tunnels could not be created at the intended position by the TT technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.