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.

Independent Versus Transtibial Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed with different techniques for independent and transtibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnels, but there is still no consensus on which approach leads to the best outcome. Purpose: To assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on July 1, 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The influence of different femoral drilling techniques was analyzed through a meta-analysis in terms of patient-reported outcome measure scores, risk of complications, range of motion limitations, graft failure, and differential laxity. Subanalyses were performed to compare the different independent drilling techniques considered. Linear metaregression was performed to evaluate if the year of study publication influenced the results. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines. Results: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials including 1658 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm score were higher with the independent drilling approach (mean difference [MD], 1.24 [ P = .02] and 0.55 [ P = .005], respectively). No difference was documented in terms of the risk of reinjury, but independent drilling led to reduced KT-1000 arthrometer–assessed anterior tibial translation (MD, 0.23; P = .01) and a higher probability of a negative postoperative pivot-shift test finding (risk ratio, 1.13; P = .04). There were no significant differences in IKDC objective or Tegner scores. A P value of .07 was found for the association between the year of the study and IKDC objective scores. Conclusion: Independent femoral tunnel drilling provided better results than the TT approach, although the difference was not clinically significant. No difference was observed in the risk of reinjury. Increasingly better results were seen among surgical procedures performed in more recent years. Among the independent drilling options, the anteromedial portal technique seemed to provide the most favorable outcomes. The lack of clinically significant differences and the promising outcomes reported with new modified TT techniques suggest the importance of correct placement, rather than the tunnel drilling approach, to optimize the results of ACL reconstruction.

Figure-of-nine position: A convenience trick for standard technique of ACL reconstruction

While position of leg during arthroscopy may not affect clinical outcome of a well-done ACL reconstruction, better view during reconstruction, more efficient fluid ingress in position of hyperflexion during femoral tunnel drilling, decreased crowding of instrumentation, and convenient disposition during surgery for surgeon and assistant with need for reduced logistics are some advantages of figure of nine position. Adoption of this alternative position in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction is easy because it does not require alteration to standard technique of ACL reconstruction. There are even greater merits for considering this position for three portal medial viewing medial drilling techniques.

Safe Femoral Fixation Depth and Orientation for Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background: Patients who undergo anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) can have a persistent postoperative pivot shift. Performing lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) concurrently has been proposed to address this; however, LET femoral fixation may interfere with the ACLR femoral tunnel, which could damage the ACL graft or its fixation. Purpose: To evaluate the safe maximum implant or tunnel depth for a modified Lemaire LET when combined with ACLR anteromedial portal femoral tunnel drilling and to validate the safe LET drilling angles to avoid conflict with the ACLR femoral tunnel. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Twelve fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were used. With each knee at 120° of flexion, an ACLR femoral tunnel in the anteromedial bundle position was created arthroscopically via the anteromedial portal using a 5-mm offset guide, a guide wire, and an 8-mm reamer, which was left in situ. A modified Lemaire LET was performed using a 1 cm-wide iliotibial band strip harvested with the distal attachment intact, to be fixed in the femur. The desired LET fixation point was identified with an external aperture 10 mm proximal and 5 mm posterior to the fibular collateral ligament’s femoral attachment, and a 2.4-mm guide wire was drilled, aiming at 0°, 10°, 20°, or 30° anteriorly in the axial plane and at 0°, 10°, or 20° proximally in the coronal plane (12 different drilling angle combinations). The relationship between the LET drilling guide wire and the ACLR femoral tunnel reamer was recorded for each combination. When a collision with the femoral tunnel was recorded, the LET wire depth was measured. Results: Collision with the ACLR femoral tunnel occurred at a mean LET wire depth of 23.6 mm (range, 15-33 mm). No correlation existed between LET wire depth and LET drilling orientation ( r = 0.066; P = .67). Drilling angle in the axial plane was significantly associated with the occurrence of tunnel conflict ( P < .001). However, no such association was detected when comparing the drilling angle in the coronal plane ( P = .267). Conclusion: Conflict of LET femoral fixation with the ACLR femoral tunnel using anteromedial portal drilling occurred at a mean depth of 23.6 mm but also at a depth as little as 15 mm, which is shorter than most implants. When longer implants or tunnels are used, the orientation should be directed at least 30° anteriorly in the axial plane to minimize the risk of tunnel conflict, bearing in mind the risk of joint violation. Clinical Relevance: This study provides important information for surgeons performing LET in combination with ACLR anteromedial portal femoral tunnel drilling regarding safe femoral implant or tunnel length and orientation.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Subsequent Meniscal Surgery After Successful Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background: One of the goals of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a meniscal protective effect on the knee. Despite the advancement of ACL reconstruction techniques, subsequent meniscal tears after ACL reconstruction remain a problem, and the risk factors for recurring lesions are still unclear. Purpose: To investigate the incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after primary ACL reconstruction without revision ACL surgery and to determine the risk factors associated with this reoperation. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Overall, 518 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2012 at one instution participated in this study. Data on body mass index, graft type and femoral tunnel-drilling technique of ACL reconstruction, and location and type of meniscal injury and its treatment at ACL reconstruction were collected from medical records. Clinical outcomes were investigated, including side-to-side difference of anterior laxity, pivot-shift grade, and subsequent meniscal surgery without ACL insufficiency (at minimum 2-year follow-up). Results: The prevalence of tears to the medial meniscus (MM) at the primary ACL reconstruction was 43.6% (226/518), 140 of which were repaired; on the contrary, tears of the lateral meniscus (LM) had a prevalence of 55.8% (289/518), 42 of which were repaired. At a mean 30.3 months (range, 8-124 months) after ACL reconstruction, 20 patients (3.9%; 14 MM tears, 3 LM tears, 3 MM + LM tears) required meniscal surgery without ACL reinjury or recurrence of instability. Of these, 14 MMs and 3 LMs had been repaired at primary ACL reconstruction. The failure rates of repaired MM and LM were 10.0% (14/140) and 7.1% (3/42), respectively. The failure rate of MM repair using the all-inside technique (6/36) was significantly higher compared with no treatment, inside-out repair, or partial resection ( P = .045). In multiple regression analysis, the presence of MM injury at the time of ACL reconstruction (odds ratio [OR], 7.81; P = .003), the side-to-side difference of postoperative anterior tibial translation (OR, 1.91; P = .032), and follow-up period after ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.02; P = .003) were risk factors of subsequent meniscal surgery after ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after successful ACL reconstruction was <5%. Presence of MM tear at the time of ACL reconsturuction, small amount of increased anterior laxity, and long-term period after ACL reconstruction were predictive of subsequent meniscal surgery.

Journey around the Notch: A Systematic Review on the History of ACL Reconstruction in the United States

The evolution of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery, seemingly circular at times, informs and provides context for past and current controversies in ACL management. The purpose of this systematic review is to objectively summarize the historical course of ACL reconstruction and repair in the United States over the last 40 years. Femoral tunnel drilling and graft selection have evolved dramatically over the last few decades. An initial focus on restoring ACL anatomy was for a period sacrificed for decreased operative morbidity. However, recent developments in operative techniques aim to restore ACL anatomy while also achieving minimal operative morbidity. Despite this historically iterative process, there remains no perfect choice for the treatment of ACL tears. Continued research on ACL repair, anatomic graft placement, graft choice, and augmentation will help our patients over the next generation.

Comparison of Clinical Results of Anteromedial and Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Drilling in ACL Reconstruction

Background: This study compares long term results of femoral tunnel drilling between anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) techniques in reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Methods: 300 patients with ACL reconstructions were chosen to this study from previously collected data of ACL reconstructions.They were divided into two groups: 150 patients with AM and 150 with TT drilling. In the AM group the reconstructions were performed using semitendinosus graft with Tape Locking Screw (TLS™) technique (n=87) or Retrobutton™ femoral and BioScrew™ tibial fixation with a semitendinosus-gracilis graft (n=63). In the TT group the fixation method used was Rigidfix™ femoral and Intrafix tibial fixation with a semitendinosus-gracilis graft. The evaluation methods were clinical examination, knee scores (Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC) and instrumented laxity measurements (KT-2000™). Our aim was to evaluate if there is a better rotational stability and therefore better clinical resultswhen using AM drilling compared to TT drilling. Results: Revision procedures were excluded from the study. There were 132 patients in the AM group and 133 in the TT group for evaluation. In the two year follow-up there were 60 patients in the AM group (45,5 %) and 58 in the TT group (43,6 %). There were no statistically significant differences found between the groups. Conclusion: Both drilling techniques resulted in improved patient performance and patient satisfaction. We found no data supporting the hypothesis that AM drilling technique provides better rotational stability to the knee. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN16407730. Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; clinicaloutcome; anteromedial; transtibial