Comparing the Use of Flexible and Rigid Reaming Systems Through an Anteromedial Portal for Femoral Tunnel Creation During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background: Recent studies have suggested that femoral tunnel drilling during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with the use of a flexible reaming system through a standard anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different tunnel geometry compared with a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AM-RR). Purpose: To summarize radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes from available studies that directly compared the use of AM-FR versus AM-RR for independent femoral tunnel creation during ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Web of Science databases to identify all studies that directly compared radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes between the use of AM-FR and AM-RR. The literature search, data recording, and methodological quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The outcomes analyzed included resultant ACL graft positioning and graft bending angle; femoral tunnel positioning, aperture morphology, length, and widening; posterior wall breakage; and distance from various posterolateral knee structures. Results: A total of 13 studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. There was no difference in femoral tunnel aperture location between techniques. There were conflicting findings among studies regarding which technique resulted in a more acute graft bending angle. One study reported greater femoral tunnel widening upon follow-up with the use of AM-FR. AM-FR produced longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than did AM-RR. The difference in tunnel length was significant and more prominent in lesser degrees of knee flexion. With AM-FR, femoral tunnels were farther from the lateral collateral ligament and peroneal nerve, and 1 of 5 studies had fewer reports of posterior wall breakage. There has been no literature comparing the clinical or functional outcomes of these techniques. Conclusion: Although no clinical studies exist comparing AM-FR and AM-RR for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR, both systems allow for reproducible positioning of an anatomic femoral tunnel aperture. The use of AM-FR results in longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than using AM-RR, with exit points on the lateral femur that are different but safe. Surgeons should be aware of the technical differences with each method; however, further study is needed to identify any clinically important difference that results.

Download Full-text

Anteromedial Portal Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Yields Similar Outcomes to Non-AMP Femoral Drilling Double-Bundle Techniques: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/2325967119888140 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (12) ◽

pp. 232596711988814 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Tushar Tejpal ◽

Arnav Gupta ◽

Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj ◽

Nolan S. Horner ◽

Nicole Simunovic ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Functional Outcomes ◽

Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Double Bundle ◽

Anteromedial Portal ◽

Bending Angle ◽

Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Anterior Cruciate

Background: Biomechanical studies have shown double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) to have increased anterior and rotational stability as compared with single-bundle ACLR. Various techniques exist to drill the femoral tunnel, such as anteromedial portal (AMP), outside-in (OI), and transtibial (TT) drilling. However, it is unclear whether one drilling technique is superior to others when a DB graft is used. Purpose: To systematically assess the outcomes and complications in patients undergoing DB ACLR through an AMP technique as compared with other femoral drilling techniques. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases were searched in April 2018. Nonrandomized studies were assessed with the MINORS (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies), whereas randomized studies were assessed with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Results: Ten studies comprising 722 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. A total of 351 patients underwent DB ACLR with AMP drilling (mean ± SD age, 32.7 ± 4.7 years); 318 patients had DB ACLR with OI drilling (age, 31.9 ± 4.1 years); and 53 received a DB ACLR with TT drilling (age, 26.5 ± 2.0 years). Graft types used included hamstring autograft (74.1%; n = 247), tibialis anterior autograft (6.0%; n = 20) and unspecified grafts (19.8%; n = 66). No significant difference in postoperative Tegner and Lysholm scores was found between the AMP and OI groups postoperatively. The AMP group had a lower anterior and posterior graft bending angle as compared with the OI group. Four patients (1.1%) in the AMP group had graft reruptures, as compared with 9 reruptures (2.8%) in the OI group. There were no reports of rerupture in the TT group. Conclusion: DB AMP ACLR results in significantly improved functional outcome scores postoperatively. AMP techniques yield similar functional outcomes to OI ACLR. No direct comparison in functional outcomes scores were available between the AMP and TT techniques. Low overall complication and revision rates were observed for patients undergoing DB AMP ACLR and were found to be similar to those of other femoral drilling techniques. Owing to a steeper graft bending angle in patients undergoing OI or TT ACLR relative to AMP ACLR, patients treated with OI or TT femoral drilling may have increased strain placed on the graft. Based on the various limitations in the available literature, it is not currently possible to make a definite conclusion of whether AMP is superior to non-AMP techniques in the setting of DB ACLR.

Download Full-text

Lateral Augmentation Procedures in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Anatomic, Biomechanical, Imaging, and Clinical Evidence

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546517751140 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 47 (3) ◽

pp. 740-752 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Alexander E. Weber ◽

William Zuke ◽

Erik N. Mayer ◽

Brian Forsythe ◽

Alan Getgood ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Surgical Techniques ◽

Rotational Instability ◽

Imaging Diagnostics ◽

Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Anterior Cruciate

Background: There has been an increasing interest in lateral-based soft tissue reconstructive techniques as augments to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The objective of these procedures is to minimize anterolateral rotational instability of the knee after surgery. Despite the relatively rapid increase in surgical application of these techniques, many clinical questions remain. Purpose: To provide a comprehensive update on the current state of these lateral-based augmentation procedures by reviewing the origins of the surgical techniques, the biomechanical data to support their use, and the clinical results to date. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted via the Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, SportDiscus, and CINAHL databases. The search was designed to encompass the literature on lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) procedures and the anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance and sorted into the following categories: anatomy, biomechanics, imaging/diagnostics, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes. Results: The search identified 4016 articles. After review for relevance, 31, 53, 27, 35, 45, and 78 articles described the anatomy, biomechanics, imaging/diagnostics, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes of either LET procedures or the ALL reconstruction, respectively. A multitude of investigations were available, revealing controversy in addition to consensus in several categories. The level of evidence obtained from this search was not adequate for systematic review or meta-analysis; thus, a current concepts review of the anatomy, biomechanics, imaging, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes was performed. Conclusion: Histologically, the ALL appears to be a distinct structure that can be identified with advanced imaging techniques. Biomechanical evidence suggests that the anterolateral structures of the knee, including the ALL, contribute to minimizing anterolateral rotational instability. Cadaveric studies of combined ACLR-LET procedures demonstrated overconstraint of the knee; however, these findings have yet to be reproduced in the clinical literature. The current indications for LET augmentation in the setting of ACLR and the effect on knee kinematic and joint preservation should be the subject of future research.

Download Full-text

Maturity Progression of the Entire Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft of Insertion-Preserved Hamstring Tendons by 5 Years: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546520951507 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 48 (12) ◽

pp. 2970-2977

Author(s):

Yuhan Zhang ◽

Shaohua Liu ◽

Qingyan Chen ◽

Yiwen Hu ◽

Yaying Sun ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Femoral Tunnel ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Tibial Tunnel ◽

Hamstring Tendon ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Tunnel Section ◽

Anterior Cruciate

Background: It has been reported that insertion-preserved hamstring tendon autografts (IP-HT) have better maturity than free hamstring tendon autografts (FHT) at 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR); however, whether insertion preservation improves the maturity of the entire autograft and clinical outcomes at 5 years after ACLR is still unclear. Purpose: To investigate the clinical outcomes and maturity of different segments using insertion-preserved and free hamstring tendon autografts up to 5 years after ACLR. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: 45 patients who underwent isolated ACLR with hamstring tendon autografts were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups. The study group had ACLR with IP-HT, whereas the control group had ACLR with FHT. The International Knee Documentation Committee and Tegner scores, Lysholm activity score, and KT-1000 arthrometer measurements were evaluated preoperatively and at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postoperatively. Three-dimensional-reconstruction MRI examinations were performed at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months to evaluate the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) values of femoral tunnel graft, intra-articular graft, and tibial tunnel graft. Results: At 60 months, the SNQ values of the intra-articular and tunnel sections for the grafts in both groups showed no difference; the clinical outcomes were improved compared with before surgery ( P < .001) and were similar in both groups. In the early stage, all graft segments in the IP-HT group had lower SNQ values than those of the FHT group. At 6 months, the entire graft in the FHT group and the femoral tunnel section in the IP-HT group had the maximum SNQ values, whereas the femoral tunnel graft had the highest SNQ value compared with intra-articular and tibial tunnel graft in each group. SNQ values of the intra-articular and tibial tunnel graft in the IP-HT group had no significant change within 60 months. Conclusion: All patients had similar clinical outcomes and graft maturity at 60 months postoperatively. The SNQ values and progressions varied at different graft sites and were highest for the femoral tunnel graft. All significantly changing SNQ values reached the maximum value at 6 months. Compared with FHT autograft, the graft maturity of IP-HT autograft recovered earlier and appeared more stable within the 60-month follow-up; however, no significant association was found between graft maturity and clinical scores.

Download Full-text