J arch: A contemporary soft-tissue landmark for anatomic placement of femoral tunnel in remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction

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.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, can an anatomic femoral tunnel be achieved with the trans-tibial technique? Cadaveric study

Purpose To evaluate the possibility to access the anatomic femoral insertion of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) through trans-tibial (TT) and trans-portal technique, for ACL reconstruction in an independent way. To register anatomical characteristics of the TT tunnels. Methods Ten formaldehyde preserved knee anatomic articular specimens were dissected. Femoral tunnels were confectioned reproducing the original topography of the ACL. First, the femoral tunnel was made with the independent trans-portal technique. Then, utilizing the tibial stump of the ACL and tibial guides at 45°, the TT tunnels were confectioned trying to match the previously made femoral tunnel by trans-portal technique. Results In all specimens, match between the TT tunnel with the independent trans-portal tunnel was achieved. Mean values for TT coronal angle was 53,0°, for transversal angle 43,3° and for distance from tunnel to joint line 2,55 cm. A horizontalization and medialization of the TT tunnels had to be made to adequately match with the femoral tunnel made by the independent trans-portal technique. Conclusions By macroscopic anatomic and independent means, an anatomic femoral tunnel was confectioned with the TT technique matching with the anatomic femoral tunnel made in an independent way. As clinical relevance, the present study allows to anatomically assess the possibility to perform an anatomic femoral tunnel through the TT technique. Level of evidence V

Computed tomographic evaluation of bone tunnel enlargement following single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft

<p class="abstract">The purpose of this study is to evaluate tibial and femoral tunnel diameter following single bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and correlation between tunnel enlargement and clinical outcome. Twelve patients who underwent primary arthroscopic single bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring graft were included in prospective case series. Preoperative clinical evaluation was performed using international knee documentation committee (IKDC) subjective score and grade, Tegner knee score and Lysholm knee score. Computed tomography (CT) evaluation of the femoral and tibial tunnels were done on post-operative day (POD) 1 and at a mean follow up of 9 months (range 7-12 months) and were compared with functional scores. Our study shows significant tibial and femoral tunnel enlargement on CT scan at 9 months (range 7-12 months) postoperatively. All the clinical evaluation scales showed improvement postoperatively. The mean average femoral tunnel diameter increased significantly (p&lt;0.001) from 8.17±0.57 to 9.08±0.660 (10%) and tibial tunnel diameter increased significantly (p&lt;0.001) from 8.08±0.669 to 9.07±0.601 (11%) postoperatively at a mean follow up of 9 months (range 7-12 months). No statistically significant difference between tunnel enlargement and clinical values were found. In our current prospective CT based study, we conclude use of extracortical fixation of femoral tunnel with stronger fixation of the tibial tunnel, tunnel orientation and anatomic fixation close to the joint line along with less aggressive rehabilitation protocol with use of extension knee brace may result in minimization of tunnel widening with quadrupled hamstring autograft.</p>

Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Background: To determine the characteristics of cross-pin protrusion in patients treated with the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device for femoral tunnel preparation through the anteromedial portal in ACLR, analyse the reasons for this outcome, and identify safety hazards of this surgical technique for improvement. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ACLR using this technology at our hospital in 2018 was conducted. Patients with and without cross-pin protrusion were included in the case and control groups, respectively. The sex, age and imaging characteristics of the patients with cross-pin protrusion were identified, and the reasons for cross-pin protrusion were analysed. Results: There were 64 and 212 patients in the case and control groups, respectively. The proportion of cross-pin protrusion cases was 23.19% (64/276). There was a significant difference in the ratio of males to females (P <0.001, χ2=185.184), the mediolateral femoral condyle diameter (case group, 70.59 ±2.51 mm; control group, 82.65±4.16 mm; P <0.001, t=28.424), and the anteroposterior diameter of the lateral femoral condyle (case group, 58.34±2.89 mm; control group, 66.38±3.53 mm; P <0.001, t=16.615). The cross-pins did not penetrate the lateral femoral condyle cortex in patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥76 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated the cortex when the diameter was ≤70 mm. The cross-pins did not penetrate when the anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter was ≥66 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated it when the diameter was ≤59 mm. Conclusion: The patients with cross-pin protrusion after reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation treatment to prepare the femoral tunnel through the anteromedial portal in ACLR were mainly females with small femoral condyles. For patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥76 mm and an anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 66 mm, there is no risk of cross-pin protrusion, so this technique can be used with confidence.

The Femoral Tunnel Drilling Angle at 45° Coronal and 45° Sagittal Provided the Lowest Peak Stress and Strain on the Bone Tunnels and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft

Purpose: The aims of this study were to 1) investigate the effects of femoral drilling angle in coronal and sagittal planes on the stress and strain distribution around the femoral and tibial tunnel entrance and the stress distribution on the graft, following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), 2) identify the optimal femoral drilling angle to reduce the risk of the tunnel enlargement and graft failure.Methods: A validated three-dimensional (3D) finite element model of a healthy right cadaveric knee was used to simulate an anatomic ACLR with the anteromedial (AM) portal technique. Combined loading of 103.0 N anterior tibial load, 7.5 Nm internal rotation moment, and 6.9 Nm valgus moment during normal human walking at joint flexion of 20° was applied to the ACLR knee models using different tunnel angles (30°/45°/60° and 45°/60° in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively). The distribution of von Mises stress and strain around the tunnel entrances and the graft was calculated and compared among the different finite element ACLR models with varying femoral drilling angles.Results: With an increasing coronal obliquity drilling angle (30° to 60°), the peak stress and maximum strain on the femoral and tibial tunnel decreased from 30° to 45° and increased from 45° to 60°, respectively. With an increasing sagittal obliquity drilling angle (45° to 60°), the peak stress and the maximum strain on the bone tunnels increased. The lowest peak stress and maximum strain at the ACL tunnels were observed at 45° coronal/45° sagittal drilling angle (7.5 MPa and 7,568.3 μ-strain at the femoral tunnel entrance, and 4.0 MPa and 4,128.7 μ-strain at the tibial tunnel entrance). The lowest peak stress on the ACL graft occurred at 45° coronal/45° sagittal (27.8 MPa) drilling angle.Conclusions: The femoral tunnel drilling angle could affect both the stress and strain distribution on the femoral tunnel, tibial tunnel, and graft. A femoral tunnel drilling angle of 45° coronal/ 45° sagittal demonstrated the lowest peak stress, maximum strain on the femoral and tibial tunnel entrance, and the lowest peak stress on the ACL graft.

Hybrid Transtibial Femoral Preparation for Transphyseal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Radiographic Comparison With the Transtibial and Anteromedial Portal Techniques

Background: Transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remains the most commonly used technique for pubescent patients. The transtibial (TT) drilling technique creates vertical and central femoral tunnels to minimize the physeal area of injury at the expense of a nonanatomic femoral tunnel. The hybrid TT (HTT) technique offers the potential of an anatomic femoral position with tunnel geometry similar to that using the TT technique. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to perform a radiographic comparison of the HTT technique with TT and anteromedial portal (AM) techniques in adolescent patients undergoing transphyseal ACL reconstruction. It was hypothesized that femoral tunnels created during HTT would be similar to TT tunnels but significantly more vertical and central than AM tunnels. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively screened primary transphyseal ACL reconstructions performed in adolescents at our institution between 2013 and 2019. The youngest 20 eligible patients were selected from each technique cohort: TT, AM, and HTT. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for the coronal femoral tunnel angle, as well as the location of the tunnel-physis penetration on the anteroposterior and lateral views. Physeal lesion surface area was calculated. Data were compared among the 3 groups using 1-way analysis of variance followed by pairwise comparisons. Results: Included were 47 patients with a mean ± SD age of 14.3 ± 1.2 years (n = 9 with TT, 18 with AM, and 20 with HTT techniques). The coronal tunnel angle was significantly more vertical in the TT (60.7° ± 7.2°) and HTT (54.4° ± 5.7) groups as compared with the AM group (48.8° ± 5.9; P = .0037 and P = .02, respectively). There was no significant difference between the TT and HTT groups ( P = .066). The only significant finding regarding femoral tunnel location was that the HTT tunnels (28.9% ± 4.8%) penetrated the physis more centrally than did the AM tunnels (20.0% ± 5.1%; P = .00002) on lateral radiographs. Conclusion: The HTT technique presents an option for transphyseal ACL reconstruction, with femoral tunnel obliquity and estimated physeal disruption similar to that of the TT technique and significantly less than that of the AM technique. The HTT technique also results in the most central physeal perforation of all techniques, predominantly in the sagittal plane.

Influence of Graft Bending Angle on Femoral Tunnel Widening After Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction: Comparison of Transportal and Outside-In Techniques

Background: Previous studies have suggested that increased mechanical stress due to acute graft bending angle (GBA) is associated with tunnel widening and graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Few studies have compared the GBA between the outside-in (OI) and the transportal (TP) techniques. Purpose: To evaluate the influence of GBA on clinical outcomes and tunnel widening after ACL reconstruction with OI versus TP technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included in the study were 56 patients who underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction (n = 28 in the OI group and n = 28 in the TP group). Clinical outcomes (Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner score, and knee laxity) 1 year postoperatively were evaluated. Computed tomography scans at 5 days and 1 year postoperatively were used for imaging measurements, and the femoral tunnel was divided into the proximal third, middle, and aperture sections. The GBA and cross-sectional area (CSA) were measured using image analysis software and were compared between groups. A correlation analysis was performed to determine if the GBA affected clinical outcomes or tunnel widening. Results: No significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes between the groups. The GBA of both the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral bundles were more acute in the OI group compared with the TP group ( P < .05). The CSA at the AM tunnel aperture increased significantly in the OI group (84.2% ± 64.3%) compared with the TP group (51.4% ± 36.7%) ( P = .04). However, there were no differences in the other sections. In the Pearson correlation test, GBA was not correlated with tunnel widening or clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Regardless of technique, the GBA did not have a significant influence on tunnel widening or clinical outcomes. Considering a wider AM tunnel aperture, a more proximal and posterior AM tunnel position might be appropriate with the OI technique.

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.