The significance of guiding anterior cruciate ligament revision: a modified femoral tunnel classification.

BACKGROUND: The positioning error of femoral tunnel was the key factor leading to the failure of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This study aimed to propose a new femoral tunnel classification to guide revision ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Totals of 150 patients with ACL reconstruction failure from 2017 to 2023 were enrolled in this retrospective study. According to the tunnel diameter, shape, posterior wall and the positioning relationship with the Lateral Intercondylar Ridge on the three-dimensional CT imaging, we divided the femoral tunnels into four types: Type I off-target type, Type II straddled type, Type III anatomical type, and Type IV irregular type. Finally, explored the inter-observer reliability within two groups of doctors (Group A, 12 high seniorities; Group B, 12 low seniorities), and evaluated the intra-observer reliability within 6 doctors after two months. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Lysholm score, Tenger activity score, Pivot Shift and anterior knee laxity measurements. RESULTS: Among 150 cases of femoral tunnel three-dimensional CT reconstructed imaging, 144 cases were successfully included in the classification system, and 6 cases were confirmed as uncertain type. We measured the Kappa (κ) coefficient of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (κ 0.72 VS 0.68), and the κ coefficient of group A was still higher than group B (κ 0.69 VS 0.62) after further dividing Type III anatomical type into three subtypes. In addition, the κ coefficients of intra-observer reliability were all exceeded 0.73. Clinical follow-up showed that 9 patients had good knee joint motor function and stability after operation. CONCLUSION: The new femoral tunnel classification was reliable and had clinical guiding significance based on three-dimensional CT imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Proximally positioned femoral grafts decrease passive anterior tibial subluxation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a posterior trans-septal portal.

PURPOSE: To compare the anterior and posterior trans-septal (TS) portal approaches in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) by evaluating femoral tunnel positioning and passive anterior tibial subluxation (PATS). METHODS: A total of 205 patients who underwent primary ACLR using the outside-in technique between March 2018 and December 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were classified into two groups based on the viewing techniques: the anterior group was treated using anteromedial or anterolateral portals (n = 155), and the TS group was treated using posterior TS portal (n = 55). The relative locations of the femoral tunnel were evaluated using the deep-shallow planes (X-axis) and superior-inferior planes (Y-axis) with the quadrant method in the lateral femoral condyle on a 3-dimensional computed tomography image. Anterior tibial subluxation for the lateral and medial compartments relative to the femoral condyles was evaluated as measured on magnetic resonance imaging. Knee laxity was assessed using the pivot-shift test and stress radiography. RESULTS: In the posterior TS group, the femoral tunnel was usually located deeper on the X-axis and more superior on the Y-axis, which corresponds to a more proximal position, than in the anterior group (deeper on the X-axis and superior on the Y-axis). Moreover, the femoral tunnel locations in this group were more compactly distributed than those in the anterior group. The TS group showed significantly better reduction of postoperative PATS in the lateral compartments than the anterior group (anterior group vs. TS group: lateral compartment, 3.2 ± 3.1 vs. 4.5 ± 3.2 mm; p = .016). Significantly better results were found in the TS group for knee stability as assessed by the pivot-shift grade (p = .044); however, there were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (p > .05) and other complications (p = .090). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that positioning the femoral tunnel using the posterior TS portal approach may lead to better outcomes in terms of PATS and rotational stability compared to the anterior portal approach in ACLR.

Functional and Symptomatic Improvements Based on the Femoral Tunnel Drilling Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The current literature comparing femoral tunnel techniques often reports on short-term outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but only a few studies have analyzed long-term outcomes. In addition, many studies have compared transtibial to anteromedial portal techniques without differentiating whether rigid or flexible reaming is used, making it difficult to infer how the techniques truly compare to one another. PURPOSE: This study aimed to detect differences in patient-reported outcome scores in those treated with three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Of 650 patients treated for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries with ACLR, 350 were 5+ years out from surgery. Of these patients, 111 completed patient-reported outcome surveys (PROs). The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to detect differences between patients treated with either of the three femoral tunnel drilling techniques: transtibial (TT), anteromedial portal with rigid reaming (AMP-RR), or anteromedial portal with flexible reaming (AMP-FR). Bonferroni correction was applied to the p-values to reduce the risk of making a type 1 error. RESULTS: No differences were found between the three groups in demographics or postoperative PROs. However, there was a significant change between pre-surgery and post-surgery PROs. TT, when compared to AMP-RR, had a greater increase in satisfaction and greater improvement in a patient's ability to go up and down the stairs from pre-surgery to post-surgery. AMP-FR, when compared to TT, had greater improvement of the patient's knee stiffness/swelling. AMP-FR, when compared to AMP-RR, had greater improvement in knee pain during stairs and the ability to go down the stairs. No differences in return to sport, additional procedures on the affected knee (meniscal surgeries or cyclops lesion excisions), or revision surgery rates were found. CONCLUSION: Overall, postoperative PROs did not show statistically significant differences between the three femoral tunnel drilling techniques. Differences, however, were identified in the responses to specific questions on PRO surveys, which may have otherwise been overlooked. It is important to recognize the differences between TT, AMP-RR, and AMP-FR in the improvement of stair climbing and swelling/stiffness as these likely directly affect a patient's satisfaction from pre-ACLR to post-ACLR.

It is challenging to reproduce both anatomical and functional aspects of anterolateral reconstruction: postoperative 3D-CT analysis of the femoral tunnel position.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the femoral tunnel position and fiber length of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction compared with the natural anatomy of the ALL. We also evaluated whether the femoral tunnel position would affect residual pivot shift. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of 55 knees that underwent ALL reconstruction considering the anatomical and functional aspects, during primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the presence of a high-grade pivot shift or revisional ACL reconstruction. We determined the position of the femoral tunnel and the length of graft using a three-dimensional (3D)-computed tomography (CT) model after ALL reconstruction. We also measured graft excursion during surgery and examined pivot shift 2 years after surgery. We conducted a subgroup analysis of femoral tunnel position, fiber length, isometricity, and residual pivot shift depending on whether the tunnel was anterior or posterior to the lateral epicondyle (LE). We also performed a subgroup analysis depending on whether the ACL reconstruction was primary or revisional. RESULTS: The mean femoral tunnel position was 2.04 mm posterior and 14.5 mm proximal from the center of the LE. The mean lengths of the anterior and posterior fibers were 66.6 and 63.4 mm, respectively. The femoral tunnel was positioned more proximally than the anatomical position, and both anterior and posterior ALL fibers were longer than the natural anatomy. The anteroposterior femoral tunnel position was significantly correlated with anterior (p = 0.045) and posterior (p = 0.037) fiber excursion. In the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in the residual pivot shift between the posterior and anterior tunnel positions. However, there were significant differences for proximal position (p < 0.001) and fiber length (p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between primary and revisional ACL regarding femoral tunnel position and fiber lengths. CONCLUSION: It is challenging to reproduce both anatomical and functional aspects of ALL reconstruction in both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. Especially for functional reconstruction, the femoral tunnel tended to be positioned more proximally than the anatomical position. However, the femoral tunnel position did not affect functional clinical outcomes at the 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV Case series.

The 45° and 60° of sagittal femoral tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provide similar knee stability.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare 45° and 60° of sagittal femoral tunnel angles in terms of anterior tibial translation (ATT), valgus angle and graft in situ force following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Ten porcine knees were subjected to the following loading conditions: (1) 89 N anterior tibial load at 35° (full extension), 60° and 90° of knee flexion and (2) 5 N m valgus tibial moment at 35° and 45° of knee flexion. ATT and graft in situ force of the intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and ACLR were collected using a robotic universal force/moment sensor (UFS) testing system for (1) ACL intact, (2) ACL-deficient (ACLD) and (3) two different ACLR using different sagittal femoral tunnel angles (coronal 45°/sagittal 45° and coronal 45°/sagittal 60°). RESULTS: During the anterior tibial load, the femoral tunnel angle of ACLR knees at coronal 45°/sagittal 45° and 60° had significantly higher ATT than that of the ACL-intact knees at 60° of knee flexion (p < 0.05). The femoral tunnel angle of ACLR knees at coronal 45°/sagittal 60° had significantly lower graft in situ force than that of the ACL-intact knees at 60° and 90° of knee flexion (p < 0.05). During the valgus tibial moment, the femoral tunnel angle of ACLR knees at coronal 45°/sagittal 45° and 60° had significantly lower graft in situ force than that of the ACL-intact knees at all knee flexions (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The femoral tunnel angle of ACLR knees at coronal 45°/sagittal 45° provided similar ATT, valgus angle and graft in situ force to that of ACLR knees at coronal 45°/sagittal 60°. Therefore, both femoral tunnel angles could be used in ACLR, as the sagittal femoral tunnel angle does not appear to be relevant in post-operative knee stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.

Comparison of the quadrant method measuring four points and bernard method in femoral tunnel position evaluation on 3-dimensional reconstructed computed tomography after anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: This prospective study aimed to compare the postoperative evaluation of the quadrant method measuring four points and Bernard method in femoral tunnel position evaluation on 3-Dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) following the arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with ACL tears that were reconstructed using single-bundle ACL reconstruction between May 2021 and March 2023 were included in this study. Postoperative 3D CT images were obtained after the operation. The femoral tunnel position was measured by use of the quadrant method measuring four points and Bernard method. RESULTS: Average mean position of the femoral tunnel insertion center on the 3D CT image was at 26.16 ± 6.27% in the x-coordinate and at 24.36 ± 5.52% in the y-coordinate according to the Bernard method. Meanwhile, the position of the femoral insertion of the ACL measured by the quadrant method measuring four points was 24.2% ± 6.86% in the x-coordinate and 21.16% ± 5.14% in the y-coordinate. CONCLUSIONS: Both the quadrant method measuring four points and Bernard method were effective in femoral tunnel position evaluation on 3D reconstructed CT. Application of the quadrant method measuring four points on 3D CT showed the advantage that measurement can be taken regardless of the shape of the bone tunnel.

Femoral tunnel length does not impact outcomes following ACL reconstruction using a single-bundle quadriceps tendon autograft: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To determine whether femoral tunnel length (FTL) affects clinical or functional outcomes following primary Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with single-bundle quadriceps tendon autograft, both with and without a patellar bone block. METHODS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was carried out via OVID. Data pertaining to study characteristics, patient demographics, surgical techniques, femoral tunnel length, and subjective/objective clinical outcomes was abstracted. Studies were stratified into two groups based on FTL; a short femoral tunnel (S-FT) group of ≤25 mm, and a long femoral tunnel (L-FT) group of >25 mm. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between studies, prohibiting meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 368 total patients with a mean age of 30.3 years (range: 23.4-34 years) were included for analysis. The S-FT group included 126 patients and the L-FT group 242 patients. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements across both subjective and objective clinical and functional outcomes. Average complication rates were 11.9% (range: 0%-29%) in the S-FT group and 4.5% (range: 1%-14%) in the L-FT group. Ranges of re-rupture rates were 0%-2% and 0%-3% for the S-FT and L-FT groups, respectively (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Both S-FT and L-FT groups demonstrated comparable postoperative outcomes following primary ACLR with single bundle quadriceps tendon autograft. There were slightly superior, although non-significant, outcomes reported with short femoral tunnel length, however, this may have been confounded by the variation in surgical technique used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A comparative study on 3D printing-assisted arthroscopic IDEAL point femoral tunnel positioning for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus conventional arthroscopic positioning.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and precision of using a 3D-printed template for femoral tunnel placement in guiding the optimal positioning of the Internal anatomical stop and Low tension maintenance (IDEAL) bone tunnel during single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 40 patients who underwent arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction at our hospital between April 2021 and November 2021. In the direct vision group, the IDEAL bone tunnel was positioned using radiofrequency localization directly visualized at the stump. In the 3D-printed positioning group, preoperative CT scans and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data were employed. Following the Quadrant method by Bernard, the femoral tunnel's depth was set at 25% and its height at 29%. Postoperative plain CT scans enabled the reconstruction of 3D models for both groups. The accuracy of femoral tunnel placement was then compared. RESULTS: The central locations of the bone tunnels in the direct vision group were at a mean depth of 25.74 ± 1.84% and a height of 29.22 ± 2.97%. In the 3D printing localization group, these values were 25.39 ± 2.98% for depth and 28.89 ± 2.50% for height, respectively. No significant differences were found in tunnel positioning between the groups. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) and Lysholm scores postoperatively, with no significant differences observed 12 months post-surgery. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that 3D printing-assisted arthroscopic IDEAL point femoral tunnel positioning and conventional arthroscopic positioning are feasible and effective for ACL reconstruction. Using 3D printing technology to design femoral anchor points in ACL reconstruction allows for the customization of anterior fork reconstruction and precise bone tunnel positioning, supporting the goal of individualized and accurate reconstruction.

Lateral femoral tunnel preparation and graft fixation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-A discussion.

This article provides a discussion and commentary around the recent advances in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), with a focus on the aspects of lateral femoral tunnel preparation and graft fixation techniques. The paper explores and comments on a recently published review by Dai et al, titled "Research progress on preparation of lateral femoral tunnel and graft fixation in ACLR", while providing insight into its relevance within the field of ACLR, and recommendations for future research.

Anterior cruciate ligament femoral side retained stump technique reduces enlargement of the femoral bone tunnel after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Enlargement of the bone tunnel has become an unavoidable early complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, whether it is a single or double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Preservation of the ACL stump in ACL reconstruction reduces enlargement of the bone tunnel. The purpose of this study was to investigate the question of whether single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the ACL femoral side retained stump technique reduces enlargement of the femoral tunnel. METHODS: Forty patients who underwent single-bundle reconstruction of the ACL were included in this study. The patients were categorized into a Remnant preservation group (Group R) and the Non-remnant preservation group (Group N). In the Remnant preservation group, a high-flexion femoral side retained stump technique was used intraoperatively for the establishment of the femoral side bone tunnel, and in the Non-remnant preservation group, the conventional femoral positioning method was used (we used a femoral positioning drill for localization and drilling of the femoral bone tunnel), and MRI of the operated knee joints was performed at 6 months postoperatively. We measured the internal diameter of the femoral bone tunnel at 5 mm from the intra-articular outlet of the femoral bone tunnel on an MRI scan image perpendicular to the femoral bone tunnel. The size of the tunnel was compared between the intraoperative drilling of the bone tunnel and the size of the bone tunnel at 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative clinical assessment was Lysholm score. RESULTS: After a 6-month follow-up of 40 patients, the diameter of the femoral tunnel at a distance of 5 mm from the inner opening of the femoral tunnel was 10.96 ± 0.67 mm and 10.11 ± 0.62 mm in patients of group N and group R, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).The diameter of the femoral tunnel at 6 months postoperatively in group N and group R compared to the intraoperative bone tunnel increased by 2.58 ± 0.24 mm and 1.94 ± 0.31 mm, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).The femoral tunnel enlargement rates of group N and group R were 30.94 ± 3.00% and 24.02 ± 5.10%, respectively, and the differences were significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ACL femoral side retained stump technique does not sacrifice the ideal location of the femoral tunnel and is able to preserve the possible benefits of the ACL stump: reduced femoral tunnel enlargement.

Nonanatomical femoral tunnel positioning in isolated MPFL reconstruction is not associated with an increased risk of patellofemoral osteoarthritis after a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

PURPOSE: The association between the prevalence of patellofemoral arthritis (PFA) and femoral tunnel positioning following isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLr) has not been well described. The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between femoral tunnel positioning and the prevalence of PFA. METHODS: This was a single-centre study of patients undergoing an isolated MPFLr between 2006 and 2011 with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Outcomes assessed were the presence of PFA on radiographs, recurrence of instability requiring revision surgery and patient-reported outcomes, including Kujala, Tegner and IKDC scores. Tunnel positioning was assessed on postoperative radiographs using two radiographic methods: Schöttle's point and the grid method to localise the femoral tunnel. Patients were grouped based on tunnel positioning and compared. RESULTS: Fifty patients were analysed at a mean follow-up of 12.4 years. Thirty-three patients (66%) had a femoral tunnel position within 7 mm of Schöttle's point and 39 (78%) within the anatomic quadrant, with the most common location according to the grid method in D4 (28%) and E4 (26%), respectively. Thirty-seven patients (74%) had a satisfactory (>80 versus <80) Kujala score at long-term follow-up. None of the examined tunnel assessment methods demonstrated a significant relationship with Tegner, Kujala or International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Patients with a femoral tunnel position >7 mm outside Schöttle's point or were considered to be in a nonanatomic position were not significantly more likely to result in unsatisfactory Kujala scores at the last follow-up. Tunnel positioning and the other tested parameters were not found to be significantly associated with the development of PFA. CONCLUSION: No correlation between femoral tunnel position and risk of PFA or poor outcomes was observed in patients undergoing isolated MPFLr at long-term follow-up. The impact of femoral tunnel placement on long-term outcomes in patients with PFI may be less significant than originally considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

App-based analysis of the femoral tunnel position in ACL reconstruction using the quadrant method.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and interobserver variability of an app-based analysis of the femoral tunnel position using the quadrant method in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 12/2020 und 12/2021 50 patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Intraoperative strictly lateral fluoroscopic images of the knee with marked femoral tunnel were analyzed by four observers using the quadrant method. For retest reliability analysis, measurements were repeated once by 2 observers after 4 weeks. RESULTS: The femoral tunnel position of all included patients averaged 27.86% in the depth relation and 15.61% in the height relation. Statistical analysis showed an almost perfect intra- and interobserver reliability in the depth and height relation. The ICC was 0.92 in the depth relation and 0.84 in the height relation. The Pearson's correlation coefficient in the depth and height relation of observer 1 (0.94/0.81) was only slightly different from the Pearson's correlation coefficient of observer 2 (0.92/0.85). The app-based tunnel analysis took on average 59 ± 16 s per measurement. CONCLUSION: The femoral tunnel analysis with the app-based quadrant method has an almost perfect intra- and interobserver reliability. By smartphone camera, a fast and highly accurate, if necessary also intraoperative, control of the tunnel position can be performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3-diagnostic retrospective cohort study.

High flexion femoral side remnant preservation positioning technique: a new method for positioning the femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to find a new method for femoral side preservation positioning in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and test the accuracy and precision of this method. METHOD: Fifty patients with isolated ACL rupture (42 males and 8 females) who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction in our hospital between July 2022 and July 2023 were included. The lowest point of the cartilage margin of the lateral wall of the intercontinental fossa and the tibial plateau plumb line at 120° of knee flexion were used as the anatomical landmarks for positioning of the femoral tunnel for ACL reconstruction surgery. Femoral side remnant preservation was performed in all cases. Three-dimensional CT was performed 3 days postoperatively to collect the data, which were analyzed using Mimics 21.0 software. We measured the posterior cortical distance of the femoral condyle at 90° of knee flexion and the vertical distance from the center of the bone tunnel to the cortical extension line behind the femur. All femoral tunnel positions were marked on a 4 × 4 grid and visualized using the quadrant method. RESULTS: Using the new positioning method in 50 knees, the average distance of x was 25.26 ± 2.76% of t and the average distance of y was 23.69 ± 6.19% of h. This is close to the results of previous studies, where x was 24.2 ± 4.0% of t and the average distance of y was 21.6 ± 5.2% of h. Most femoral tunnel positions were located in the same area. The D values were distributed as follows: 60% in the range of 0 to 2 mm, 24% in the range of 2 to 4 mm, and 16% more than 4 mm. The E values were distributed as follows: 80% in the range of 0 to 4 mm and 20% more than 4 mm. CONCLUSION: In arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, the knee was flexed at 120° and the lowest point of the cartilage edge of the lateral wall of the intercondylar fossa and the tibial plateau plumb line were used as anatomical landmarks for the positioning of the femoral bone tunnel, which resulted in more accurate femoral bone tunnel positioning, better reproducibility, and better preservation of the femoral stump compared to traditional positioning methods.

Palpation and fluoroscopy are valid but unreliable for the assessment of femoral tunnel position after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of two techniques, palpation and fluoroscopy, for assessing medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction femoral tunnel position accuracy. METHODS: Twenty-one fresh frozen cadaveric knees had an MPFL femoral tunnel drilled and filled with a metal screw. Tunnels were created in a nonstandard fashion to ensure the sample included a range of tunnel positions from poor to ideal. Six experienced sport medicine and arthroscopy surgeons evaluated the placement of the femoral tunnel by palpating the screw in relation to anatomic landmarks and by fluoroscopy related to Schöttle's Point. They evaluated 1) the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement, 2) the direction of tunnel error, and 3) the clinical acceptability of the tunnel position. Validity measures included sensitivity, specificity, and correlation to clinical acceptability, which were calculated for the palpation and fluoroscopic assessments. Reliability measures included interrater reliability (ICC 2,k) for femoral tunnel accuracy and percent agreement of the raters' tunnel direction assessment. RESULTS: The palpation method demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.79 and specificity of 0.84 for assessing the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement, while the fluoroscopic method showed a sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.92. Pearson correlation coefficients for clinical acceptability of tunnel position were high, with both techniques ranging from .589 to .854. Interrater reliability for the palpation and fluoroscopic techniques for assessment of tunnel accuracy were 0.31 and 0.55 (ICC 2,k), respectively. Assessment of the direction of tunnel error was good with the fluoroscopic technique slightly more accurate than palpation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that both palpation and fluoroscopy are valid techniques for assessing femoral tunnel position after MPFL reconstruction. Despite demonstrating good validity, the accuracy of assessing tunnel position was unreliable in a group of six experienced knee surgeons. Further research into MPFL reconstruction femoral tunnel assessment techniques, including patient-specific reference standards, is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

Comparison of five different fluoroscopic methods for identifying the MPFL femoral footprint.

PURPOSE: The success of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction is closely linked to the precise positioning of the femoral tunnel. Intraoperative fluoroscopy is commonly utilized to identify the MPFL footprint. This study aimed to ascertain the most accurate fluoroscopic method among the five previously described methods used to determine the MPFL femoral footprint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 44 well-preserved dry femur bones, the MPFL femoral insertion site was demarcated using anatomical bony landmarks, namely the center of the saddle sulcus between the medial epicondyle, adductor tubercle and gastrocnemius tubercle. Fluoroscopic true lateral knee images were acquired and measurements taken, referencing established methods by Schottle et al., Redfern et al., Wijdicks et al., Barnett et al., and Kaipel et al. The distance between anatomic and fluoroscopic MPFL footprints was then measured on digital fluoroscopic images. The accuracy of the locations was compared using a margin of error of 5 and 7 mm. RESULTS: The Schottle method consistently emerged superior, showcasing the smallest mean distance (3.2 ± 1.2 mm) between the anatomic and radiographic MPFL footprints and a high in-point detection rate of 90.9% under 5 mm criteria. While the Redfern method displayed perfect accuracy (100%) within the 7 mm criteria, the Schottle method also performed 97.7% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: For intraoperative identification of the MPFL footprint using fluoroscopy, the Schottle method is the most consistent and accurate among the assessed methods. Thus, its accuracy in detecting the MPFL footprint makes it recommended for MPFLR to ensure optimal outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, cadaveric study.

MPFL reconstruction with proximal rather than distal femoral tunnel position leads to less favorable short-term results.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction (MPFLR) between anatomic femoral tunnel positions: proximal (near adductor tubercle [AT]) and distal (near medial epicondyle [ME]). HYPOTHESIS: MPFLR with the proximal femoral tunnel position has worse clinical and radiological outcomes than those with the distal femoral tunnel position. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients who underwent isolated MPFLR with proximal or distal femoral tunnels with at least 2 years of follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Based on postoperative CT images, 28 patients were classified as group AT and the remaining 27 patients were classified as group ME. The International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, Tegner, Kujala scores, and complications were evaluated. Radiologically, the Caton-Deschamps Index (CDI), patellar tilt angle, patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA), patellofemoral cartilage status by the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade, bone contusion, and MPFL graft signal intensity were evaluated. RESULTS: All clinical scores significantly improved in both groups (p<0.01). No statistically significant difference was noted between the two groups in regards to their preoperative demographic data, postoperative clinical scores, complications, or radiological findings (CDI, patellar tilt angle, PFOA, bone contusion, and graft signal intensity). The group AT had worse cartilage status on the medial facet of the patella (p=0.02). The ICRS grade for the medial facet of the patella statistically progressed in group AT compared to group ME (p=0.04) as well. DISCUSSION: Both groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes. However, for the medial facet of the patella, MPFLR with the proximal femoral tunnel position had worse cartilage status and ICRS grade progression than those with the distal femoral tunnel position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; retrospective comparative study.

Patient specific instrumentation in ACL reconstruction: a proof-of-concept cadaver experiment assessing drilling accuracy when using 3D printed guides.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate positioning of the femoral tunnel in ACL reconstruction is of the utmost importance to reduce the risk of graft failure. Limited visibility during arthroscopy and a wide anatomical variance attribute to femoral tunnel malposition using conventional surgical techniques. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a patient specific 3D printed surgical guide allows for in vitro femoral tunnel positioning within 2 mm of the planned tunnel position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient specific guide for femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction was created for four human cadaveric knee specimens based on routine clinical MRI data. Fitting properties were judged by two orthopedic surgeons. MRI scanning was performed both pre- and post-procedure. The planned tunnel endpoint was compared to the actual drilled femoral tunnel. RESULTS: This patient specific 3D printed guide showed a mean deviation of 5.0 mm from the center of the planned femoral ACL origin. CONCLUSION: In search to improve accuracy and consistency of femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction, the use of a patient specific 3D printed surgical guide is a viable option to explore further. The results are comparable to those of conventional techniques; however, further design improvements are necessary to improve accuracy and enhance reproducibility.

Anatomic femoral tunnel position in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: anterior versus posterior.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) between anatomic femoral tunnel positions at anterior and posterior footprints. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients who underwent MPFLR for patellofemoral instability with anterior or posterior femoral tunnels between 2014 and 2021 with at least 2 years of follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Based on postoperative images, the femoral tunnel positions anterior to the line connecting the adductor tubercle and medial epicondyle were assigned to the anterior group, group A, and those posterior to the line to the posterior group, group P. Thirty-two patients were included in group A (mean age, 22.4 ± 8.8 years), and another 25 patients were included in group P (mean age, 21.1 ± 6.1 years). The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, Kujala score, and complications were evaluated. Radiologically, the Caton-Deschamps index (CDI), patellar tilt angle, and patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) scale were evaluated. The patellofemoral cartilage status according to the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade, bone contusion, femoral tunnel enlargement, and MPFL graft signal intensity were also evaluated. RESULTS: All clinical scores significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.01). No differences were noted between the two groups in terms of their preoperative demographic data, postoperative clinical scores (IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner, and Kujala), complications, or radiological findings (CDI, patellar tilt angle, PFOA, bone contusion, femoral tunnel enlargement, and graft signal intensity). The ICRS grade for the medial facet of the patella progressed in group A (30%, p = 0.02) but not in group P (18%, p = n.s.). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in the other compartments of the patellofemoral joint. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes were significantly improved in both groups; however, MPFLR with anterior femoral tunnel position had worse cartilage status on the medial facet of the patella than the posterior femoral tunnel position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Research progress on preparation of lateral femoral tunnel and graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is one of the most common types of sports injuries. People's need to participate in sports and desire for a high quality of life promotes the continuous development of ACL reconstruction technology. Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction has been recognized as an effective method for the treatment of ACL injuries. This review analyses and summarizes the advantages and limitations of each surgical procedure for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction reported in the relevant literature so as to promote the future development of more relevant techniques.

The apex of the deep cartilage is a stable landmark to position the femoral tunnel during remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate whether the apex of the deep cartilage (ADC) could help surgeons position the femoral tunnel accurately in remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: In the current retrospective cohort study, a total of 134 patients who underwent ACLR between 2016 and 2020 were included. The femoral tunnel position was located using ADC as the landmark. The patients were divided into two groups: the remnant-preserving group (RP group, n = 68) underwent remnant-preserving ACLR, and the nonremnant group (NRP group, n = 66) underwent traditional ACLR with remnant removal. Postoperatively, the femoral tunnel position was evaluated on 3D-CT. The length from the ADC to the shallow cartilage margin (L) and to the centre of the femoral tunnel (l) and the length from the centre of the femoral tunnel to a low cartilage ratio in the direction from high to low (H) were measured. RESULTS: The l/L values of the RP and NRP groups were both 0.4 ± 0.1 after rounding (n.s.), and the H values were 9.3 ± 1.6 mm and 9.3 ± 1.7 mm, respectively (n.s.). There was no significant difference in l/L or H between the two groups. The estimation plot also showed high consistency of H and l/L of the two groups. The inter- and intraobserver reliability of I, L, l/L, and H were almost perfect. CONCLUSIONS: The apex of the deep cartilage is a good landmark for positioning the femoral tunnel in remnant-preserving ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.