Paper 124: Can the 10:30 Femoral Tunnel Position be Achieved Through a Tibial Tunnel or Must an Anteromedial Portal be Used?

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. e249
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Tunnel ◽  
Tibial Tunnel ◽  
Anteromedial Portal ◽  
Tunnel Position ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Position

scholarly journals Tunnel-enlargement after MPFL reconstruction with a free gracilis graft does correlation with proximal tunnel malposition

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0014
Author(s):  
Efe Turgay ◽  
Almut Höger ◽  
Jens Figiel ◽  
Philip Roessler ◽  
Karl-Friedrich Schüttler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Femoral Tunnel ◽  
Cartilage Damage ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Mpfl Reconstruction ◽  
Tunnel Enlargement ◽  
Tunnel Position ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Position ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Enlargement

Aims and Objectives: In current literature only one study investigates femoral tunnel enlargement after medial patello-femoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction. Aim of the present study was to investigate the occurrence of femoral tunnel enlargement after MPFL reconstruction and a possible correlation to femoral tunnel position as well as clinical outcome. Materials and Methods: Patients with a minimum follow-up of at least 24 months after MPFL reconstruction with a free gracilis graft and without concomitant procedures were identified by reviewing patient files. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were contacted and invited to participate in the study. After informed consent a clinical examination as well as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed. Tegner activity scale, Kujala score as well as the IKDC were evaluated. On MR images tunnel position in frontal and saggital planes, tunnel diameter as well as possible confounders such as cartilage damage were assessed. Results: 31 consecutive Patients (23 female, 8 male) were identified and took part in this ongoing investigation. Mean follow-up was 4.1 years. A femoral tunnel enlargement was noted in 12 patients. In 9 of these 12 patients the femoral tunnel was positioned too proximal. In the 19 patients that showed no tunnel enlargement only 6 tunnels were placed too proximal. Clinical results did not differ significantly between patient groups with or without tunnel enlargement regarding range of motion of the knee joint, Tegner, Kujala or IKDC score. Conclusion: Proximal malposition of the femoral tunnel was significantly more often in patients with femoral tunnel enlargement implying a biomechanical reason for tunnel enlargement after MPFL reconstruction. An impact on clinical outcome could not be perceived.

scholarly journals Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction Femoral Tunnel Accuracy

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596711668774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie A. Hiemstra ◽  
Sarah Kerslake ◽  
Mark Lafave
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Medial Patellofemoral Ligament ◽  
Femoral Tunnel ◽  
Patellofemoral Instability ◽  
Mpfl Reconstruction ◽  
Tunnel Position ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Position ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Placement

Background: Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction is a procedure aimed to reestablish the checkrein to lateral patellar translation in patients with symptomatic patellofemoral instability. Correct femoral tunnel position is thought to be crucial to successful MPFL reconstruction, but the accuracy of this statement in terms of patient outcomes has not been tested. Purpose: To assess the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement in an MPFL reconstruction cohort and to determine the correlation between tunnel accuracy and a validated disease-specific, patient-reported quality-of-life outcome measure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Between June 2008 and February 2014, a total of 206 subjects underwent an MPFL reconstruction. Lateral radiographs were measured to determine the accuracy of the femoral tunnel by measuring the distance from the center of the femoral tunnel to the Schöttle point. Banff Patella Instability Instrument (BPII) scores were collected a mean 24 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 155 (79.5%) subjects had adequate postoperative lateral radiographs and complete BPII scores. The mean duration of follow-up (±SD) was 24.4 ± 8.2 months (range, 12-74 months). Measurement from the center of the femoral tunnel to the Schöttle point resulted in 143 (92.3%) tunnels being categorized as “good” or “ideal.” There were 8 failures in the cohort, none of which occurred in malpositioned tunnels. The mean distance from the center of the MPFL tunnel to the center of the Schöttle point was 5.9 ± 4.2 mm (range, 0.5-25.9 mm). The mean postoperative BPII score was 65.2 ± 22.5 (range, 9.2-100). Pearson r correlation demonstrated no statistically significant relationship between accuracy of femoral tunnel position and BPII score ( r = –0.08; 95% CI, –0.24 to 0.08). Conclusion: There was no evidence of a correlation between the accuracy of MPFL reconstruction femoral tunnel in relation to the Schöttle point and disease-specific quality-of-life scores. Graft failure was not related to femoral tunnel placement. The patellofemoral instability population is complex, and patients present with multiple risk factors that, in addition to the accuracy of femoral tunnel position, contribute to quality of life and warrant further investigation.

scholarly journals Failure Analysis in Patients With Patellar Redislocation After Primary Isolated Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712092617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias J. Feucht ◽  
Julian Mehl ◽  
Philipp Forkel ◽  
Andrea Achtnich ◽  
Andreas Schmitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Medial Patellofemoral Ligament ◽  
Femoral Tunnel ◽  
Trochlear Dysplasia ◽  
Patellofemoral Instability ◽  
Tibial Tuberosity ◽  
Mpfl Reconstruction ◽  
Tunnel Position ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Position ◽  
Valgus Malalignment

Background: Reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) has become a popular surgical procedure to address patellofemoral instability. As a consequence of the growing number of MPFL reconstructions performed, a higher rate of failures and revision procedures has been seen. Purpose: To perform a failure analysis in patients with patellar redislocation after primary isolated MPFL reconstruction. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients undergoing revision surgery for reinstability after primary isolated MPFL reconstruction were included. Clinical notes were reviewed to collect demographic data, information on the primary surgery, and the mechanism of patellar redislocation (traumatic vs nontraumatic). Preoperative imaging was analyzed regarding femoral tunnel position and the prevalence of anatomic risk factors (ARFs) associated with patellofemoral instability: trochlear dysplasia (types B through D), patella alta (Caton-Deschamps index >1.2, patellotrochlear index <0.28), lateralization of the tibial tuberosity (tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance >20 mm, tibial tuberosity–posterior cruciate ligament [TT-PCL] distance >24 mm), valgus malalignment (mechanical valgus axis >5°), and torsional deformity (internal femoral torsion >25°, external tibial torsion >35°). The prevalence of ARF was compared between patients with traumatic and nontraumatic redislocations and between patients with anatomic and nonanatomic femoral tunnel position. Results: A total of 26 patients (69% female) with a mean age of 25 ± 7 years were included. The cause of redislocation was traumatic in 31% and nontraumatic in 69%. Position of the femoral tunnel was considered nonanatomic in 50% of patients. Trochlear dysplasia was the most common ARF with a prevalence of 50%, followed by elevated TT-PCL distance (36%) and valgus malalignment (35%). The median number of ARFs per patient was 3 (range, 0-6), and 65% of patients had 2 or more ARFs. Patients with nontraumatic redislocations showed significantly more ARFs per patient, and the presence of 2 or more ARFs was significantly more common in this group. No significant difference was observed between patients with anatomic versus nonanatomic femoral tunnel position. Conclusion: Multiple anatomic risk factors and femoral tunnel malposition are commonly observed in patients with reinstability after primary MPFL reconstruction. Before revision surgery, a focused clinical examination and adequate imaging including radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), standing full-leg radiographs, and torsional measurement with computed tomography or MRI are recommended to assess all relevant anatomic parameters to understand an individual patient’s risk profile. During revision surgery, care must be taken to ensure anatomic placement of the femoral tunnel through use of anatomic and/or radiographic landmarks.

scholarly journals Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Computed Tomography Evaluation of the Tunnel Location and Angle during Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0009
Author(s):  
Sang Hak Lee ◽  
Kyung Hk Yoon ◽  
Chan Il Bae
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Femoral Tunnel ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Tibial Tunnel ◽  
Posterior Wall ◽  
Width Ratio ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Tunnel Length ◽  
Tunnel Position ◽  
The Mean

Purpose: Tibial tunnel-independent drilling has attracted increased interest in recent years for anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the geometry and position of the femoral tunnel between the anteromedial portal (AMP) and outside-in (OI) techniques after anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Methods: We prospectively evaluated 82 patients undergoing single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts using either the AMP (n=40) or OI (n=42) technique. The locations of the tibial and femoral tunnel apertures were assessed by immediate postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) imaging with OsiriX imaging software. The femoral graft bending angle, femoral tunnel aperture shape (height/width ratio), femoral tunnel length, and posterior wall breakage were also measured. Results: The two techniques did not differ significantly in the femoral tunnel position perpendicular to the Blumensaat line. However, the mean femoral tunnel position parallel to the Blumensaat line was more caudally positioned in the AMP group than in the OI group (P=0.025) The two groups did not differ significantly in tibial tunnel position. The mean femoral tunnel length did not differ between the AMP (36.1±0.33 mm) and OI groups (35.6±0.37 mm; P=0.548) The mean femoral graft angle in the OI group (99.6°±7.1°) was significantly more acute than that of the AMP group (108.9°±10.2°) (p < 0.0001). The mean height/width ratio of the AMP group (1.21±0.20) was significantly more ellipsoidal than that of the OI group (1.07±0.09) (p < 0.0001). Posterior wall breakage was detected in 3 cases (7.5%), all in the AMP group. Conclusions: After single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction, 3D CT showed a significantly shallower femoral tunnel in the AMP group than in the OI group. The AMP group had a more ellipsoidal femoral tunnel with a risk of posterior wall breakage than the OI group. The OI group showed a more acute bending angle of the femoral tunnel than the AMP group. [Figure: see text][Figure: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document