Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Computed Tomography Evaluation of the Tunnel Location and Angle in Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of the Anteromedial Portal and Outside-in Techniques

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the geometry and position of the femoral tunnel between the anteromedial portal (AMP) and outside-in (OI) techniques after anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 82 patients undergoing single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring autografts using either the AMP (n=40) or OI (n=42) technique. The locations of the tunnel apertures were assessed by postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography imaging. The femoral graft bending angle, femoral tunnel aperture shape, femoral tunnel length, and posterior wall breakage were also measured. RESULTS: The mean femoral tunnel position parallel to the Blumensaat line was more caudally positioned in the AMP group than in the OI group (p=0.025) The mean femoral graft angle in the OI group (99.6°±7.1°) was significantly more acute than that of the AMP group (108.9°±10.2°, p<0.001). The mean height/width ratio of the AMP group (1.21±0.20) was significantly more ellipsoidal than that of the OI group (1.07±0.09, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The mean femoral tunnel position was significantly shallower in the AMP technique than in the OI technique. The OI technique might be more disadvantageous than the AMP technique in terms of the more acute bending angle.

Arthroscopic Control for Safe and Secure Seating of Suspensory Devices for Femoral Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Three Different Techniques

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of our technique that allows direct visualization of seating of suspensory devices in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different suspensory devices (TightRope RT, RetroButton, and EndoButton) were used in ACL reconstruction using 3 different techniques (outside-in, anteromedial [AM] portal, and transtibial techniques). Positioning of a guiding material and seating pattern of the suspensory devices were evaluated according to the surgical technique and suspensory device used. RESULTS: On the transtibial technique, 21 of total 26 cases (81%) of single bundle reconstructions and 22 of total 22 cases (100%) of double bundle reconstructions required superolateral capsulotomy where buttons were found in 21 of total 21 cases (100%) and 17 of 22 cases (77%), respectively. On the AM portal technique, all patients required capsulotomy and the button was found in only 18 of total 32 cases (56%) even after capsulotomy. On the outside-in technique, all patients required capsulotomy and the button was found in 86 of total 86 cases (100%). CONCLUSIONS: Our technique for direct visualization of seating of the suspensory devices was more effective in outside-in and single bundle transtibial ACL reconstruction. However, it was less effective in double bundle transtibial and AM portal ACL reconstructions.

Lateral Knee Pain after Outside-in Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the TightRope RT

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) TightRope RT (TR) was recently introduced as a novel cortical suspension device for ACL reconstruction. It has an adjustable graft loop that gives the surgeon some advantages during ACL reconstruction. We report three patients who required removal of the TR after an outside-in anatomical ACL reconstruction because of lateral knee pain. We assumed that the knee pain was associated with friction between the TR button of the posterolateral bundle and iliotibial band (ITB). Placing the TR button close to the lateral epicondyle and tissue interposition between the TR button and lateral femoral cortex may be potential risk factors for ITB irritation. Therefore, we recommend not placing the TR button close to the top of the lateral epicondyle and reducing the tissue interposition between the TR button and lateral femoral cortex as much as possible.

The Correlation of Tunnel Position, Orientation and Tunnel Enlargement in Outside-in Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE: Tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a frequently described phenomenon. The possible etiology is multi-factorial with some mechanical and biological factors. Among those, we intended to determine the relation between the location and orientation of the femoral tunnel and the femoral tunnel enlargement after outside-in single-bundle ACL reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study including 42 patients who received single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the outside-in technique was conducted. Femoral and tibial tunnel locations were evaluated with the quadrant method and bird's-eye view using volume-rendering computed tomography. The angle and diameter of bone tunnel and the degree of tunnel enlargement were evaluated using standard radiographs. RESULTS: The degree of femoral tunnel enlargements were 42% and 36% on the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs, respectively, and the degree of tibial tunnel enlargements were 22% and 23%, respectively. Shallower location of the femoral tunnel was significantly correlated with greater femoral tunnel enlargement on the AP radiograph (r=0.998, p=0.004) and the lateral radiograph (r=0.72, p=0.005) as was the higher location of the femoral tunnel on the AP radiograph (r=-0.47, p=0.01) and the lateral radiograph (r=-0.36, p=0.009) at 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that more anterior and higher location and more horizontal orientation of the femoral tunnel in coronal plane could result in widening of the femoral tunnel in outside-in single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Outside-in Technique: Two- to Six-Year Clinical and Radiological Follow-up

PURPOSE: We evaluated the clinical and radiological outcomes of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using an outside-in technique with a follow-up of two- to six-years, especially in terms of the sports activity level and radiological degeneration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-seven patients who were available for a minimum two-year follow-up after double-bundle ACL reconstruction using an outside-in technique were retrospectively evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 43.7 months. The knee function and stability were evaluated before the operation, one year after the operation (short-term follow-up), and more than two years after the operation (last follow-up). RESULTS: Regarding the knee function, the Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation, and hop test showed significant improvement. Regarding the stability, the Lachman test, pivot shift test, KT-2000 arthrometer data, and anterior drawer radiographs using Telos showed significant improvement. Regarding the sports activity level, the patients who returned to pre-injury level activity was 68.7% according to the Tegner activity score and 76.1% according to the Cincinnati sports activity scale score. The incidence of aggravated degeneration or development of greater than IKDC grade A degeneration after surgery was 10.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction using an outside-in technique showed favorable clinical and radiological outcomes with respect to the knee function and stability, joint degeneraion, and, especially, return to pre-injury sports activity.

Clinical Results Comparing Transtibial Technique and Outside in Technique in Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical results of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the conventional transtibial technique and the anatomical outside-in technique for femoral tunneling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2007 to 2011, 89 patients who received ACL reconstruction were followed for > or =1 year were enrolled in the study. The conventional transtibial technique was used in 41 patients and the outside-in technique, in 48 patients. Femoral tunnel angle measurement and three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) were used for radiologic assessment of the location of femoral tunnel and Lysholm score and other tests were used for clinical assessment. RESULTS: Both techniques did not reveal statistical differences in the clinical assessment. However, in International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation, the sum of two questionnaire items regarding instability showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.01). In the pivot shift test, the anatomical outside-in technique showed outstanding rotational stability over the transtibial technique (p=0.04). The mean femoral tunnel inclination in coronal plane were 69.2degrees and 30.3degrees, respectively, for both techniques, and 21.6degrees and 50.8degrees, respectively in sagittal plane, showing statistically significant differences on simple radiography (p=0.04, 0.05). A 3D CT was performed in 17 patients with the conventional transtibial technique and 25 patients with the outside-in technique. Coefficients of variation were 0.33 and 0.13, respectively, from dorsal border of the condyle and 0.67 and 0.24, respectively, from the roof of intercondylar notch. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral tunnels created with the outside-in technique have superior knee joint rotational stability compare to the transtibial technique. Therefore, the outside-in technique could be considered as a valuable technique in single-bundle ACL reconstruction.