Does Remnant Preservation Influence Tibial Tunnel Enlargement or Graft-to-Bone Integration After Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hamstring Autografts and Suspensory Fixation? A Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation

Background: Remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction was introduced to improve clinical outcomes and biological healing. However, the influences of remnant preservation on tibial tunnel position and enlargement are still uncertain. Purpose: To evaluate whether remnant-preserving ACL reconstruction influences tibial tunnel position or enlargement and to examine the relationship between tunnel enlargement and graft-to-bone integration in the tibial tunnel. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 91 knees with double-bundle ACL reconstructions were enrolled in this study. ACL reconstruction was performed without a remnant (<25% of the intra-articular portion of the graft) in 44 knees (nonremnant [NR] group) and with remnant preservation in the remaining 47 knees (remnant-preserving [RP] group). Tibial tunnel position and enlargement were assessed using computed tomography (CT). Comparisons between groups were performed. Furthermore, graft-to-bone integration in the tibial tunnel was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging, and the relationship between tunnel enlargement and graft-to-bone integration at 1 year after ACL reconstruction was assessed. Results: A total of 48 knees (25 in NR group, 23 in RP group) were included; 19 and 24 knees in the NR and RP groups were excluded, respectively, because of graft reruptures and a lack of CT scans. There were no significant between-group differences in tibial tunnel position ( P > .05). The degree of posterolateral tunnel enlargement in the axial plane was significantly higher in the RP group than that in the NR group ( P = .007) 1 year after ACL reconstruction. The degree of anteromedial tunnel enlargement on axial CT was significantly smaller in knees with graft-to-bone integration than in those without integration ( P = .002) 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: ACL reconstruction with remnant preservation did not influence tibial tunnel position and did not decrease the degree or incidence of tibial tunnel enlargement. At 1 year postoperatively, tunnel enlargement did not affect graft-to-bone integration in the posterolateral tunnel, but graft-to-bone integration was delayed in the anteromedial tunnel.

Radiographic analysis of the tibial tunnel position after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Introduction. The aim of the study was to analyze the tibial tunnel position after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Material and Methods. The study included 830 patients who underwent this operative procedure. There were four times more male than female patients. The tibial tunnel placement was analyzed on frontal and lateral radiograph images of the knee joint. Results. The average frontal tibial index was 55% (35 - 68%), the average frontal tibial angle was 75 degrees (58 - 90), the sagittal tibial index was 30% (15 - 52%) and the sagittal tibial angle was 68 degrees (50 - 89). Conclusion. A significant deviation from these values may potentially lead to failure of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

The influence of graft placement on clinical outcome in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Purpose: the aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of graft tunnel position on both clinical outcome and instrumental knee stability in patients submitted to arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft. Methods: thirty patients (24 men and 6 women) who underwent ACL reconstruction performed using an autologous bone-patellar tendon-bone graft were studied at a mean follow-up of 18 months. Clinical outcome was assessed on the basis of the Lysholm score, Tegner activity level, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form and the Short Form-36. Clinical outcomes were correlated with both femoral and tibial tunnel placement measured on standard anteroposterior and lateral knee radiographs, in accordance with established guidelines. Results: tibial tunnel position on the lateral view correlated significantly with both the IKDC subjective form (r = -0.72; p<0.05) and the Lysholm score (r=-0.73; p<0.05). Tibial tunnel position on the lateral view also correlated with stability measured using a KT-1000 arthrometer at 30N of force (r=0.57; p<0.05). No correlation was found between α angle and anteroposterior (AP) laxity measured by KT-1000 arthrometer. No significant correlation was found between femoral tunnel position (on either view) and Lysholm score, IKDC score and Tegner activity level. Similarly, no correlation was found between AP laxity measured by KT-1000 arthrometer and femoral tunnel position. Conclusions: these results suggest that the more anterior the placement of the tibial tunnel, the better the clinical outcome will be. On the basis of literature data and our findings, we discuss the hypothesis that there exists a “correct area” for tunnel placement, making it possible to obtain the best results. Level of evidence: Level IV, case series.

The Lateral Meniscus as a Guide to Anatomical Tibial Tunnel Placement During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose: The aim of the study is to show, on an MRI scan, that the posterior border of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus (AHLM) could guide tibial tunnel position in the sagittal plane and provide anatomical graft position. Method: One hundred MRI scans were analysed with normal cruciate ligaments and no evidence of meniscal injury. We measured the distance between the posterior border of the AHLM and the midpoint of the ACL by superimposing sagittal images. Results: The mean distance between the posterior border of the AHLM and the ACL midpoint was -0.1mm (i.e. 0.1mm posterior to the ACL midpoint). The range was 5mm to -4.6mm. The median value was 0.0mm. 95% confidence interval was from -0.5 to 0.3mm. A normal, parametric distribution was observed and Intra- and inter-observer variability showed significant correlation (p<0.05) using Pearsons Correlation test (intra-observer) and Interclass correlation (inter-observer). Conclusion: Using the posterior border of the AHLM is a reproducible and anatomical marker for the midpoint of the ACL footprint in the majority of cases. It can be used intra-operatively as a guide for tibial tunnel insertion and graft placement allowing anatomical reconstruction. There will inevitably be some anatomical variation. Pre-operative MRI assessment of the relationship between AHLM and ACL footprint is advised to improve surgical planning. Level of Evidence: Level 4.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Introduction: The most recent advances in ACL reconstruction try to reproduce the anatomic femoral and tibial footprints as close as possible. Creating independent tunnels would allow an optimal of the entry point and the femoral tunnel obliquity, and together with an adequate reamer diameter they wouldreproduce with greater certainty the anatomy. Objective: To compare the radiographic parameters of the femoral and tibial tunnel positions in two groups of patients, one operated with a transtibial and other with transportal anatomic techniques. Materials and Methods: From December 2012 to December 2013, 59 patients with a primary ACL reconstruction divided in two groups, a trans tibial technique (TT), 19 patients, and an transportal one (TP) with 40 patients were prospectively evaluated with AP and lateral X-rays. The femoral tunnel angle, the insertion site with respect of the Blumensaat line, the trans osseous distance, the tibial tunnel position as a percentage of the tibial plateau in the AP and lateral views. And finally the tibial tunnel angle in the AP and Lateral views. Results: The femoral tunnel angle was in the TP group of 45,92º and in the TT one 24,53º, p 0,002. The insertion site percentage of the Blumensaat line was of 20,96 in TP and 20,74 in the TT, p 0,681.Trans osseous distance was in the TP of 3,43 cm and in the TT of 4,79 cm, p <0,000. The tibial tunnel position as a percentage in the AP tibial plateau was of 44,35 in TP and of 40,80 TT with a p of 0,076. The tibial tunnel position as a percentage of the lateral tibial plateau was of 28,70 in TP and 34,53 in TT with a p 0,367. Tibial tunnel angle in the AP was of 73,48º in TP and 62,81 in TT with a p of 0,002, and in the lateral plateau of 114,69º in TP and 112,79º in TT with a p of 0,427. Conclusion: It is possible to create tibial and femoral tunnel in optimal positions but not equal between both groups. Creating independent tunnels allow a more anterior and vertical tibial tunnel allowing a better coverage of the tibial footprint. A transportal femoral tunnel would allow a better inclination angle and a lesser trans-osseous distance, technical details that would allow a better coverage of the femoral footprint.