Knee position at the moment of bone bruise could reflect the late phase of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury rather than the mechanisms leading to ligament failure

Purpose The aim of the present study was to trace knee position at the time of bone bruise (BB) and investigate how much this position departed from the knee biomechanics of an in vivo flexion–extension. Methods From an original cohort of 62 patients, seven (11%) presented bicompartmental edemas and were included in the study. 3D models of bones and BB were obtained from MRI. Matching bone edemas, a reconstruction of the knee at the moment of BB was obtained. For the same patients, knee kinematics of a squat was calculated using dynamic Roentgen sterephotogrammetric analysis (RSA). Data describing knee position at the moment of BB were compared to kinematics of the same knee extrapolated from RSA system. Results Knee positions at the moment of BB was significantly different from the kinematics of the squat. In particular, all the patients’ positions were out of squat range for both anterior and proximal tibial translation, varus–valgus rotation (five in valgus and two in varus), tibial internal–external rotation (all but one, five externally and one internally). A direct comparison at same flexion angle between knee at the moment of BB (average 46.1° ± 3.8°) and knee during squat confirmed that tibia in the former was significantly more anterior (p < 0.0001), more externally rotated (6.1 ± 3.7°, p = 0.04), and valgus (4.1 ± 2.4°, p = 0.03). Conclusion Knee position at the moment of Bone bruise position was out of physiological in-vivo knee range of motion and could reflect a locked anterior subluxation occurring in the late phase of ACL injury rather than the mechanism leading to ligament failure. Level of evidence Level IV

Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model

Background With the developments in the arthroscopic technique, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant-preserving reconstruction is gradually gaining attention with respect to improving proprioception and enhancing early revascularization of the graft. To evaluate the mechanical pull-out strength of three different methods for remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction. Methods Twenty-seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used in this study. Each knee was dissected to isolate the femoral attachment of ACL and cut the attachment. An MTS tensile testing machine with dual-screw fixation clamp with 30° flexion angle was used. The 27 specimens were tested after applying re-tensioning sutures with No. 0 polydioxanone (PDS), using the single stitch (n = 9), loop stitch (n = 9), and triple stitch (n = 9) methods. We measured the mode of failure, defined as (1) ligament failure (longitudinal splitting of the remnant ACL) or (2) suture failure (tearing of the PDS stitch); load-to-failure strength; and stiffness for the three methods. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the variance of load-to-failure strength and stiffness among the three groups. Results Ligament failure occurred in all cases in the single stitch group and in all but one case in the triple stitch group. Suture failure occurred in all cases in the loop stitch group and in one case in the triple stitch group. The load-to-failure strength was significantly higher with loop stich (91.52 ± 8.19 N) and triple stitch (111.1 ± 18.15 N) than with single stitch (43.79 ± 11.54 N) (p = 0.002). With respect to stiffness, triple stitch (2.50 ± 0.37 N/mm) yielded significantly higher stiffness than the other methods (p = 0.001). Conclusions The results suggested that loop stitch or triple stitch would be a better option for increasing the mechanical strength when applying remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction.