tunnel placement
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

214
(FIVE YEARS 39)

H-INDEX

36
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2022 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Vatsal Khetan ◽  
Shyam Thakkar ◽  
Sajeer Usman ◽  
Bhushan Sabnis ◽  
Anant Joshi

Objectives: Femoral tunnel placement is a critical step in ACL reconstruction surgery. Surgeons usually end up clearing the soft tissue to access the bony landmarks. Biological ACL reconstruction with preservation of soft tissue can be done with reliable soft tissue landmarks. Our objective is to assess the reliability of a soft tissue landmark- femoral ACL remnant, for appropriate femoral tunnel placement in soft tissue preserving ACL reconstruction. Materials and Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 40 consecutive patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction in January 2018 by a single surgeon. An inverse J shaped tissue arch was identified and used as soft tissue landmark for anatomic placement of femoral tunnel. This arch was a part of femoral ACL remnant. MRI films were examined post-operatively to determine the position of the femoral tunnel. Postoperatively, MRI of these patients were reviewed to evaluate the femoral tunnel position in terms of depth and height from the proximal condylar surface and notch roof, respectively. Results: The center of the femoral tunnel was found to be at a mean depth of 27.12 ± 2.2% from the proximal condylar surface (parallel to Blumensaat’s line) and a mean height of 30.96 ± 2.75% from the notch roof (perpendicular to Blumensaat’s line), which is at par with previously defined data given by various studies. Conclusion: J arch can be used as a dependable soft tissue landmark and a guide for the anatomic placement of femoral tunnel in biological ACL Reconstruction.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Andrä ◽  
Robert Prill ◽  
Enes Kayaalp ◽  
Lars Irlenbusch ◽  
Eckehard Liesaus ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Degeneration of the cartilage after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) is known, and further deterioration can be expected in patients with tunnel malplacement or partial meniscal resection. It was hypothesized that there is a significant increase in cartilage degeneration after failed ACL-R. Material and methods Isolated ACL revision surgery was performed in 154 patients at an interval of 46 ± 33 months (5–175 months) between primary and revision surgery. Cartilage status at the medial, lateral femorotibial, and patellofemoral compartments were assessed arthroscopically during primary and revision ACL-R in accordance with the Outerbridge classification. Tunnel placement, roof angle, and tibial slope was measured using anteroposterior and lateral radiographic views. Results Cartilage degeneration increased significantly in the medial femorotibial compartment, followed by the lateral and patellofemoral compartments. There was a correlation between both cartilage degeneration in the patellofemoral compartment (PFC) (rs = 0.28, p = 0.0012) and medial tibial plateau (Rs = 0.24, p = 0.003) in relation to the position of tibial tunnel in the frontal plane. Worsening of the cartilage status in the medial femorotibial compartment, either femoral or tibial, was correlated with the tibial aperture site in the lateral view (Rs = 0.28, p < 0.001). Cartilage degeneration in the lateral compartment of the knee, on both femoral or tibial side, was inversely correlated with the femoral roof angle (Rs = −0.1985, p = 0.02). Meniscal tears, either at the medial or lateral site or at both, were found in 93 patients (60%) during primary ACL-R and increased to 132 patients (86%) during revision ACL-R. Discussion Accelerated cartilage degeneration and high prevalence of meniscal lesions are seen in failed ACL-R. Tunnel placement showed significant impact on cartilage degeneration and may partially explain the increased risk of an inferior outcome when revision surgery is required after failed primary ACL-R. Level of evidence: Level IV—retrospective cohort study.


2021 ◽  
pp. 35-41
Author(s):  
Konsei Shino ◽  
Ryohei Uchida ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoi ◽  
Tomoki Ohori ◽  
Tatsuo Mae
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Nicholas Stockwell ◽  
Benjamin R Wilson ◽  
Darren L Johnson

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Al-Hourani ◽  
J Shepperd ◽  
K Sripathmanathan ◽  
Y Zhang ◽  
B Hull ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Correct femoral tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is critical in obtaining good clinical outcomes. We aimed to delineate whether any difference exists between the anteromedial and trans-tibial portal femoral tunnel placement techniques on the primary outcome of ACLR, graft rupture. Method Adult patients (&gt;18 years old) who underwent primary ACLR between January 2011 - January 2018 were identified and divided based on portal technique (anteromedial v trans-tibail). The primary outcome measure was graft rupture. Univariate analysis was used to delineate association between independent variables and outcome. Binary logistic regression was utilised to delineate odds ratios of significant variables. Results 473 patients were analysed. Median age at surgery was 27 years old (range 18-70). 152/473 (32.1%) patients were anteromedial group compared to 321/473 (67.9%) trans-tibial. 25/473 (5.3%) patients sustained graft rupture. Median time to graft rupture was 12 months (IQR 9). A higher odd for graft rupture was associated with the anteromedial group, which trended towards significance (OR 2.03; 95% CI 0.90 - 4.56, p = 0.081). Conclusions There is no statistically significant difference in ACLR graft rupture rates when comparing anteromedial and trans-tibial portal technique for femoral tunnel placement. There was a trend towards higher rupture rates in the anteromedial portal group.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712198936
Author(s):  
Julien Montreuil ◽  
Joseph Saleh ◽  
Thierry Cresson ◽  
Jacques A. De Guise ◽  
Frédéric Lavoie

Background: Nonanatomic graft placement is a frequent cause of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure, and it can be attributed to either tibial or femoral tunnel malposition. To describe tibial tunnel placement in ACLR, we used EOS, a low-dose biplanar stereoradiographic imaging modality, to create a comprehensive grid that combines anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) coordinates. Purpose: To (1) validate the automated grid generated from EOS imaging and (2) compare the results with optimal tibial tunnel placement. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Using EOS, 3-dimensional models were created of the knees of 37 patients who had undergone ACLR. From the most medial, lateral, anterior, and posterior points on the tibial plateau of the EOS 3-dimensional model for each patient, an automated and personalized grid was generated from 2 independent observers’ series of reconstructions. To validate this grid, each observer also manually measured the ML and AP distances, the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and the tibial slope for each patient. The ideal tibial tunnel placement, as described in the literature, was compared with the actual tibial tunnel grid coordinates of each patient. Results: The automated grid metrics for observer 1 gave a mean (95% CI) AP depth of 54.7 mm (53.4-55.9), ML width of 75.0 mm (73.3-76.6), MPTA of 84.9° (83.7-86.0), and slope of 7.2° (5.4-9.0). The differences with corresponding manual measurements were means (95% CIs) of 2.4 mm (1.4-3.4 mm), 0.5 mm (–1.3 to 2.2 mm), 1.2° (–0.4° to 2.9°), and –0.4° (–2.1° to 1.2°), respectively. The correlation between automated and manual measurements was r = 0.78 for the AP depth, r = 0.68 for the ML width, r = 0.18 for the MPTA, and r = 0.44 for the slope. The center of the actual tibial aperture on the plateau was a mean of 5.5 mm (95% CI, 4.8-6.1 mm) away from the referenced anatomic position, with a tendency toward more medial placement. Conclusion: The automated grid created using biplanar stereoradiographic imaging provided a novel, precise, and reproducible description of the tibial tunnel placement in ACLR. Clinical Relevance: This technique can be used during preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, and postoperative evaluation of tibial tunnel placement in ACLR.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 263502542110000
Author(s):  
Yazdan Raji ◽  
Ajit M. Vakharia ◽  
John T. Strony ◽  
Lakshmanan Sivasundaram ◽  
Nikunj N. Trivedi ◽  
...  

Background: As the main translational and rotatory stabilizer of the knee, the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) plays a critical role in knee biomechanics. Anterior cruciate ligament ruptures generally require surgical attention for not only restoration of knee stability but also prevention of meniscal and chondral injuries. There are countless options for both the surgeon and the patient when contemplating graft choice and surgical technique for ACL reconstruction. However, the literature assessing the outcomes following various autografts has varied with some studies citing no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes, while others showing notable advantage when using bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft. In addition, there have been challenges associated with femoral tunnel placement using an anteromedial portal technique. Indications: In this study, we present a young female patient with a history of remote mid-substance ACL tear now presenting with worsening knee instability and a bucket-handle medial meniscus tear as a sequela of the incompetent ACL. After extensive discussion regarding the treatment options, patient had decided to proceed with surgical intervention with a BPTB autograft using the anteromedial portal technique for femoral tunnel placement and compression technique with bio-absorbable interference screw fixation. Results: Bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft has been noted to have lower risk of revision when compared with other graft options. Discussion: In this surgical technique study, we underline the importance of peritenon handling. We highlight the use of a 70-degree arthroscope to improve posterolateral wall visualization during femoral tunnel placement as well as for inspection of the reamed tibial tunnel. We also provide technique commentary and solutions for management of the medial femoral condyle (MFC) articular surface and femoral tunnel placement using an anteromedial portal technique. Last, we review graft-related outcomes, postoperative management, and rehabilitation protocol.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document