Background: Recently, anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is emphasized to improve joint laxity and to potentially avert initiation of cartilage degeneration. There is a paucity of information on the efficacy of ACL reconstructions by currently practiced tunnel creation techniques in restoring normal joint laxity.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Hypothesis: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by the anteromedial (AM) portal technique, outside-in (OI) technique, and modified transtibial (TT) technique can equally restore the normal knee joint laxity and ACL forces.
Methods: Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric knee specimens were tested using a robotic testing system under an anterior tibial load (134 N) at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion and combined torques (10-N·m valgus and 5-N·m internal tibial torques) at 0° and 30° of flexion. Knee joint kinematics, ACL, and ACL graft forces were measured in each knee specimen under 5 different conditions (ACL-intact knee, ACL-deficient knee, ACL-reconstructed knee by AM portal technique, ACL-reconstructed knee by OI technique, and ACL-reconstructed knee by TT technique).
Results: Under anterior tibial load, no significant difference was observed between the 3 reconstructions in terms of restoring anterior tibial translation (P > .05). However, none of the 3 ACL reconstruction techniques could completely restore the normal anterior tibial translations (P < .05). Under combined tibial torques, both AM portal and OI techniques closely restored the normal knee anterior tibial translation (P > .05) at 0° of flexion but could not do so at 30° of flexion (P < .05). The ACL reconstruction by the TT technique was unable to restore normal anterior tibial translations at both 0° and 30° of flexion under combined tibial torques (P < .05). Forces experienced by the ACL grafts in the 3 reconstruction techniques were lower than those experienced by normal ACL under both the loading conditions.
Conclusion: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions by AM portal, OI, and modified TT techniques are biomechanically comparable with each other in restoring normal knee joint laxity and in situ ACL forces.
Clinical Relevance: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions by AM portal, OI, and modified TT techniques result in similar knee joint laxities. Technical perils and pearls should be carefully considered before choosing a tunnel creating technique.
Background: Biomechanical differences between anatomical double-bundle and central single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the same graft tissue have not been defined.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare these reconstructions in their ability to restore native knee kinematics during a reproducible Lachman and pivot-shift examination.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Using a computer-assisted navigation system, 10 paired knees were subjected to biomechanical testing with a standardized Lachman and mechanized pivot-shift examination. The navigation system recorded the 3D motion path of a tracked point at the center of the tibia, center of the medial tibial plateau, and center of the lateral tibial plateau with each maneuver. The testing protocol consisted of evaluation in the intact state, after complete anterior cruciate ligament transection, after medial and lateral meniscectomy, and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with (1) a single-bundle center-center or (2) anatomical double-bundle technique. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey test was used to compare the measured translations with each test condition.
Results: A significant difference in anterior translation was seen with Lachman examination between the anterior cruciate ligament– and medial and lateral meniscus–deficient condition compared with both the double-bundle and single-bundle center-center anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (P < .001); no significant difference was observed between reconstructions. The double-bundle construct was significantly better in limiting anterior translation of the lateral compartment compared with the single-bundle reconstruction during a pivot-shift maneuver (2.0 ± 5.7 mm vs 7.8 ± 1.8 mm, P < .001) and was not significantly different than the intact anterior cruciate ligament condition (2.7 mm ± 4.7 mm, P > .05).
Discussion: Although double-bundle and single-bundle, center-center anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions appear equally effective in controlling anterior translation during a Lachman examination, analysis of pivot-shift kinematics reveals significant differences between these surgical reconstructions. An altered rotational axis resulted in significantly greater translation of the lateral compartment in the single-bundle compared with double-bundle reconstruction.
Clinical Relevance: A double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may be a favorable construct for restoration of knee kinematics in the at-risk knee with associated meniscal injuries and/or significant pivot shift on preoperative examination.
