Femoral Positioning of the Anterolateral Ligament Graft With and Without Ultrasound Location of the Lateral Epicondyle

Background: In anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction, precise positioning of the ALL graft on the femur and tibia is key to achieve rotational control. The lateral femoral epicondyle is often used as a reference point for positioning of the ALL graft and can be located by palpation or with ultrasound guidance. Purpose: To compare the ALL graft positioning on the femoral side between an ultrasound-guided technique and a palpation technique for the location of the lateral epicondyle. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 120 patients receiving a primary combined ACL and ALL reconstruction between June and December 2019 were included. The location of the lateral epicondyle was determined by palpation in the palpation group (n = 60) and with preoperative ultrasound guidance in the ultrasound group (n = 60). Groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and operated side. The planned positioning of the femoral ALL graft was proximal and posterior to the lateral epicondyle. The effective positioning of the femoral ALL graft was evaluated on postoperative lateral radiographs. The primary outcome was location of the graft in a 10-mm quadrant posterior and proximal to the lateral epicondyle. Results were analyzed in 2 subgroups according to BMI. Results: All 60 anterolateral grafts (100%) in the ultrasound group were positioned in a 10-mm quadrant posterior and proximal to the lateral epicondyle, as opposed to 52 (87%) in the palpation group ( P = .006). Errors in graft positioning with palpation occurred in overweight patients (BMI >25) as well as nonoverweight patients ( P = .3). Conclusion: Femoral positioning of the ALL graft posterior and proximal to the lateral epicondyle is more reproducible with ultrasound guidance when compared with palpation alone, regardless of BMI.

ANTEROLATERAL LIGAMENT AS ROTATION STABILISER OF KNEE- JOINT. THE ROLE OF MRT AND ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN UNDERSTANDING ITS ANATOMY AND IN SELECTING SURGICAL TREATMENT STRATEGY FOR ITS INJURIES

Objective. To assess the variability of the anterolateral ligament according to MRT and ultrasonography data and to coordinate it with surgical treatment strategy for its injuries. Methods. The anterolateral ligament was analyzed on 100 series of MRI images of knee joints without traumatic pathology on Philips Achieva 1.5 T tomograph using the standard research protocol in three mutually perpendicular planes and 150 series of MRT images of knee joints with injuries and without injuries of the anterolateral ligament obtained on different tomographs from 0.2 to 3 Tesla. The quality of visualization of anterolateral ligament separate portions, the number of layers, and the contact with the joint capsule were evaluated. Both knee joints were analyzed by ultrasonography in 30 patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries of one of the knee-joint and in 30 patients with intact knee-joints. Results. During the studies in the identification of anterolateral ligament with magnetic resonance tomography (MRT 1.5T)it was revealed at least partially in 92% of cases (in 68% as a two-layer structure; in 24% as a single-layer structure; in 14% as a thickening of the capsule or in 10% as a separate extracapsular structure), ultrasound examination - in 100% (the structure was not determined, however, in 26.67% of patients without clinically pronounced pathology of the knee-joint and significant trauma in anamnesis ultrasound scan revealed a violation of the integrity of the cortical layer at the tibial attachment site), Conclusion. According to MRT and ultrasonography data, the anterolateral ligament is a constant structure of the knee-joint, but very variable in its anatomical parameters, which in some cases may be poorly visualized on MRT, may have a two-layer structure, may be located either extracapsular or as a thickening of the knee-joint capsule. The variability of its anatomical structure makes it impossible to make the theoretical substantiation of the advantages of one separate method of its restoration, but, on the contrary, justifies a differentiated approach to the selection of optimal surgical treatment. What this paper adds With the help of current research methods, the normal anatomical parameters and anatomical variants of the anterolateral ligament of the knee joint have been clarified and detailed. It is necessary to emphasize the importance of a differentiated approach to choosethe optimal methods of surgical treatment for its injuries.

An Analysis of the Femoral Drilling Angle to Avoid Tunnel Collision during Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction on the Knee

Concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction has been reported as an effective technique for providing rotational control of the knee. However, the intraoperative risk of collision with an ACL tunnel during the drilling for the femoral ALL tunnel has been described. The purpose of this study was to investigate the various femoral drilling procedures to avoid tunnel collisions during combined double-bundle ACL and ALL reconstruction. Nine cadaveric knees were used in this study. ACL drilling was performed through the anteromedial portal to footprints of the posterolateral bundle at 120° (PL120) and 135° (PL135) knee flexion and the anteromedial bundle at 120° (AM120) and 135° (AM135) knee flexion. ALL drilling was performed at 0° (Cor0-ALL) and 30° (Cor30-ALL) coronal angles using a Kirschner wire (K-wire). The distance between the ALL footprint and ACL K-wire outlets, axial angles of ALL K-wires colliding with ACL K-wires, and distances from the ALL footprint to the collision point were measured. From these values, the safe zone, defined as the range of axial angles in which no collisions or penetrations occurred, was identified by simulation of tunnels utilized for reconstruction grafts in each drilling procedure. The point-to-point distance from the ALL footprint to the K-wire outlet was significantly greater in the AM120 than the AM135 (13.5 ± 3.1, 10.8 ± 3.2 mm; p = 0.048) and in the PL135 than the PL120 (18.3 ± 5.5, 16.1 ± 6.5 mm; p = 0.005) conditions, respectively. During an ACL drilling combination of PL135/AM120, a safe zone of > 45° in Cor30-ALL was identified. With a narrow safe zone during the PL135/AM120 combination only, the risk of femoral tunnel collisions in combined double-bundle ACL and ALL reconstruction is high. AM drilling at 120° and PL drilling at > 135° knee flexion, combined with ALL drilling at 30° coronal angle and > 45° axial angle, may reduce this risk.

Clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives To compare the clinical outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee. Methods A search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, in line with the PRISMA protocol. The indexation terms used were “anterior cruciate ligament” OR “acl” AND “anterolateral ligament” AND “reconstruction.” Articles that compared patients submitted to combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with those submitted to isolated reconstruction of the ACL, with levels of evidence I, II, and III, were included. Studies with follow-up of less than 2 years and articles that did not use “anatomical” techniques for ALL reconstruction, such as extraarticular tenodesis, were excluded. A meta-analysis with R software was conducted, with a random effects model, presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence level (CI) and statistically significant at p < 0.05. Results Ten articles were selected, with a total of 1495 patients, most of whom were men, of whom 674 submitted to ACL and ALL reconstruction and 821 to isolated ACL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction exhibited a statistically significant advantage in residual pivot shift (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24–0.47, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), rerupture rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19–0.62, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), Lachman test (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40–0.86, I2 = 21%, p < 0.01), and postoperative Lysholm score (MD 2.28, CI 95% 0.75–3.81, I2 = 73%, p < 0.01). Conclusions Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction obtained better postoperative clinical outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction, especially in reducing residual pivot shift and rerupture rate.