Anteromedial Technique Research Articles

Seven percent of primary anterior crucial ligament reconstruction patients have arthroscopic resection of cyclops lesions within 2 years: A cohort study of 2556 patients.

After anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R), a localised scar tissue called cyclops lesion may develop anterior to the graft causing knee extension deficits, pain, oedema, clicking and reduced knee function. This study determined the incidence of arthroscopic resection of a cyclops lesion within 2 years after ACL-R and investigated the associations of patient characteristics and surgical techniques with the need for arthroscopic resection of a cyclops lesion. This study included patients who underwent primary ACL-R with adult surgical technique from 2005 to 2019 at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. The cohort was identified in a national registry. To identify patients who had resected a cyclops lesion within the first 2 years after ACL-R, patients' surgical records were reviewed. In 2005-2019, 2556 patients underwent primary ACL-R; 176 developed cyclops lesions that were resected within 2 years, equivalent to an incidence of 6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9-7.9). When stratified by the femoral drilling technique used, this incidence was 8.9% (95% CI: 7.7-10.3) with the anteromedial technique and 1.9% (95% CI: 1.0-3.1) with the transtibial technique. The incidence was 8.5% (95% CI: 6.8-10.3) in women and 5.7% (95% CI: 4.6-7.1) in men. Age, graft choice and the presence of cartilage or meniscal lesions did not affect the incidence. The overall incidence of a cyclops lesion removal within 2 years post-ACL-R was 6.9%. This was five times higher with the anteromedial femoral drilling technique than with the transtibial technique. Women had a 47% higher incidence of cyclops lesion removal than men. This is relevant for the surgeon when planning an ACL-R. Level II.

Accuracy of Femoral Tunnel Placement between Anteromedial and Anterolateral Visualisation Portals in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction - Outcomes of a CT based Cross-Sectional Study.

Anatomical femoral tunnel placement is critical for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Tunnel placement may vary with different surgical techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement between the Anteromedial (AM) and Anterolateral (AL) visualisation portals on post-operative CT scans among a cohort of ACLR patients. This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2018 to March 2020 after obtaining ethics clearance. Patients who went for arthroscopic ACLR in our institute were divided into an AM (group 1) and an AL (group 2) based on the visualisation portal for creating the femoral tunnel and a 3D CT scan was done. The femoral tunnel position was calculated in deep to shallow and high to low direction using the Bernard Hertel grid. Femoral tunnel angle was measured in the 2D coronal image. Statistical analysis was done with the data collected. Fifty patients with an average age of 26.36 (18-55) years ±7.216 SD were enrolled in the study. In this study, the AM technique was significantly more accurate (p<0.01) than the AL technique in terms of femoral tunnel angle. Furthermore, the deep to the shallow position was significantly (p= 0.018) closer to normative values, as determined by the chi-square test. The chances of error in tunnel angle in femoral condyle are 2.6 times greater in the AL technique (minimal clinical difference). To conclude, in ACLR the anteromedial visualisation portal can facilitate accurate femoral tunnel placement compared to the anterolateral visualisation portal.

Comparative Study between Clinical Outcomes of All Inside Technique and Standard Antero-Medial Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Comparative Study between Clinical Outcomes of All Inside Technique and Standard Antero-Medial Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Bone tunnel positions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional CT reconstruction based on Mimics software:modified transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique

To compare the femoral and tibial tunnel positions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the modified transtibial (MTT) technique and anteromedial (AM) portal technique. Between January 2017 and September 2020, 78 patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture underwent single-bundle reconstruction with the modified transtibial technique in 39 cases (group MTT) and through anteromedial approach in 39 cases (group AM). There were 25 males and 14 females in group MTT, with an average age of (37.0±2.3) years old; 27 males and 12 females in group AM, with an average age of (37.5±2.2) years old. CT scan of the affected knee was conducted one week after the surgery to measure and compare the femoral tunnels positioning (Fx, Fy), tibial tunnels positioning in the frontal plane(Tx1), tibial tunnels positioning in the sagittal plane (Ty1), and tibial tunnels positioning in the axial plane (Tx2, Ty2) in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction through Mimics software. Three-dimensional CT reconstruction after the surgery showed that the average Fx and Fy were(25.2±2.1)% and (34.9±3.0)% respectively and the Tx1 and Ty1 were (45.5±3.3)% and (44.7± 3.0)% respectively, while the Tx2 and Ty2 were (47.0±3.0)% and (39.9±4.2)% respectively in group MTT. In group AM, the average Fx and Fy were (26.0±2.0)% and (36.1±3.9)% respectively and the Tx1 and Ty1 were (46.5±3.1)% and (45.6± 3.1)% respectively, while the Tx2 and Ty2 were (47.4±2.5)% and (39.6±3.9)% respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the femoral and tibial tunnels between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in both two groups obtained anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Both the MTT and AM technique can achieve good anatomical positioning of the femoral and tibial tunnels, without significant differences in the positioning of the bone tunnels.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background:The drilling technique used to make a femoral tunnel is critically important for determining outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The 2 most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques.Purpose:To determine whether graft orientation and placement affect clinical outcomes by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes after single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the AM versus TT technique.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched from inception until April 25, 2020, using the following Boolean operators: transtibial OR trans-tibial AND (anteromedial OR trans-portal OR independent OR three portal OR accessory portal) AND anterior cruciate ligament.Results:Of 1270 studies retrieved, 39 studies involving 11,207 patients were included. Of these studies, 14 were clinical, 13 were radiological, and 12 were mixed. Results suggested that compared with the TT technique, the AM technique led to significantly improved anteroposterior and rotational knee stability, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and recovery time from surgery. A higher proportion of negative Lachman (P = .0005) and pivot-shift test (P = .0001) results, lower KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual displacement (P = .00001), higher Lysholm score (P = .001), a higher incidence of IKDC grade A/B (P = .05), and better visual analog scale score for satisfaction (P = .00001) were observed with the AM technique compared with the TT technique. The AM drilling technique demonstrated a significantly shorter tunnel length (P = .00001). Significant differences were seen between the femoral and tibial graft angles in both techniques. Low overall complication and revision rates were observed for ACL reconstruction with the AM drilling technique, similar to the TT drilling technique.Conclusion:In single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the AM drilling technique was superior to the TT drilling technique based on physical examination, scoring systems, and radiographic results. The AM portal technique provided a more reproducible anatomic graft placement compared with the TT technique.

Higher Incidence of Radiographic Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis With Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Positioning Compared With Anteromedial Femoral Tunnel Positioning During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Anteromedial (AM) femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been reported by some authors to yield superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with the transtibial (TT) approach; however, differences in the subsequent rates of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) are not clear. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the influence of femoral tunnel positioning during primary ACLR on the development of radiographic PTOA. Study Design: Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-2019), and MEDLINE (1980-2019) were queried for all studies describing the development of PTOA after TT or AM ACLR. Data pertaining to patient demographics, ACLR technique, and radiographic PTOA were extracted. A meta-analysis utilizing the DerSimonian-Laird method for random effects was used to compare the weighted proportion of PTOA after ACLR between the TT and AM approaches. Results: There were 16 studies identified for inclusion with a total of 1546 patients. The mean follow-up across all studies was 10.9 years (range, 5.4-17.8 years). The mean follow-up in the AM and TT groups was 10.8 years (range, 5.4-17 years) and 11.4 years (range, 6-17.8 years), respectively. A total of 783 (50.6%) patients underwent TT ACLR. Of these patients, 401 (weighted mean, 49.3%) developed radiographic PTOA. A total of 763 (49.4%) patients underwent AM ACLR. Of these patients, 166 (mean, 21.8%) went on to develop radiographic PTOA. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly greater rate of PTOA after ACLR using a TT technique compared with an AM technique overall (49.3% vs 25.4%, respectively; P < .001) and when studies were stratified by 5- to 10-year (53.7% vs 14.2%, respectively; P < .001) and greater than 10-year (45.6% vs 31.2%, respectively; P < .0001) follow-up. Conclusion: TT ACLR was associated with higher overall rates of radiographic PTOA compared with the AM ACLR approach. The rates of radiographic PTOA after ACLR with a TT approach were also significantly higher than using an AM approach when stratified by length of follow-up (5- to 10-year and >10-year follow-up).

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study compared clinical outcomes obtained after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) techniques, which comprise the conventional transtibial (cTT) and modified transtibial (mTT) techniques. This study included clinical randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective controlled trials with AM and TT techniques from the PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2020. Two independent evaluators verified the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcome measures analysed included the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, side-to-side difference (SSD), Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade and score. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 prospective and retrospective controlled trials were included with a total of 2202 patients. There were 1180 patients and 1022 patients in the AM and TT groups, respectively. Compared to the cTT group, superior postoperative results were observed in the AM group based on the negative rate of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, IKDC grade and score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and SSD (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the AM and mTT groups (p > 0.05). Compared to the conventional TT technique, the AM technique exhibited superior clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the modified TT and AM techniques had comparable results. With neither of the techniques (mTT or AM) producing significantly superior outcomes, surgeons can choose either of them depending on their preferences.

Progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

To systematically review the progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and provide a clinical reference for treatment of ACL rupture. The literature about the femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction was widely reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages and the clinical results of each method were summarized. Currently in ACL reconstruction, methods for femoral tunnel positioning include transtibial technique (TT), anteromedial technique (AM), outside-in (OI), modified TT (mTT), and computer assisted surgery. There is no significant difference in the postoperative effectiveness between TT technique and AM technique. Compared with the TT technique, the OI technique has higher rotational stability of knee, but there is no significant difference in clinical results. The femoral tunnel located by mTT technique is closer to the anatomical placement than that of TT technique, but mTT technique is not effective for systematically anatomic femoral tunnel positioning, and further research is needed to prove its advantages. Different femoral tunnel positioning methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and there is no definite evidence that one is superior than the rest.

All-inside technique in ACL reconstruction: mid-term clinical outcomes and comparison with AM technique (Hamstrings and BpTB grafts)

PurposeThe aim of this study was to define the subjective and objective clinical results of all-inside surgical technique at a medium-term follow-up and to compare these results with those obtained from antero-medial (AM) ACL reconstruction technique using hamstrings (HS) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BpTB) grafts to detect eventual superiority of one technique to another.MethodsA retrospective analysis of routinely collected data was conducted. Inclusion criteria were ACL reconstruction through all-inside technique or AM technique with HS or BpTB performed between January 2015 and May 2018; age between 15 and 30 year old; minimum 24 months’ available follow-up. Exclusion criteria were contralateral ACL reconstruction; need for any other associated procedures during surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed with KOOS, Lysholm, Tegner scores and KT-1000 device.ResultsAccording to the selection criteria, 157 patients were enrolled and divided subsequently into 3 groups: all-inside (51 patients), AM-HS (53 patients) and AM-BpTB (53 patients). A significant postoperative improvement of each score in all groups was detected. The mean KT-1000 was 3.1 ± 1.0 mm in all-inside group, while 3.3 ± 1.4 mm and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm in AM-HS and AM-BpTB groups, respectively. Comparing the results obtained, no statistically significant difference was found between the three techniques (p = 0.27). Statistically significant differences were highlighted in surgical duration: all-inside method was the longest (117′), followed by AM-BpTB surgery (101′) and AM-HS technique (87′).ConclusionsThe all-inside technique showed good postoperative results at medium-term follow-up. It could be a valuable solution for ACL reconstruction, especially in young patients due to its less invasiveness, despite surgical skills and time needed.Levels of evidenceLevel IV.

Superior Postoperative Stability and Functional Outcomes With Anteromedial Versus Transtibial Technique of Single-Bundle Autologous Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative stability and functional outcomes of anteromedial (AM)- and transtibial (TT)-based single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques. A meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of single-bundle hamstring ACL reconstruction using the AM and TT techniques was performed. Prospective randomized controlled trials identified from searches of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were included in this review. The outcome measures analyzed included postoperative Lachman test and pivot-shift test results, side-to-side difference, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials (654 patients) were included in this review. The AM technique, compared with the TT technique, resulted in superior postoperative stability based on the negative Lachman test rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.24; P= .03; 95% prediction interval [PI], 0.32 to 3.46), negative pivot-shift test rate (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.28; P= .002; 95% PI, 0.40 to 2.88), and side-to-side difference (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.32 mm; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.16; P < .0001; 95% PI, -0.55 to -0.09). Likewise, the AM technique contributed to superior postoperative functional outcomes based on the proportion of IKDC grade A findings (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.32; P= .03; 95% PI, 0.40 to 2.83) and the Lysholm score (WMD, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.41; P= .007; 95% PI, -0.22 to 1.86). However, the AM and TT techniques had comparable subjective IKDC scores (WMD, 0.98; 95% CI, -0.91 to 2.88; P= .31; 95% PI, -3.18 to 5.14) and Tegner activity scores (WMD, 0.32; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.86; P= .25; 95% PI, -3.84 to 4.48). The AM method of single-bundle hamstring ACL reconstruction results in superior postoperative stability and functional outcomes compared with the TT method. Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

Excellence in Research:A Hybrid Transtibial Technique Combines the Strengths of theAnteromedial Portal and Transtibial Approaches: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives:Improved biomechanical and clinical outcomes have been reported when femoral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tunnels are centered on the native footprint. The anteromedial (AM) portal technique achieves improved aperture position when compared to a transtibial (TT) approach but sacrifices technical ease and creates a shorter more acutely angulated tunnel. A hybrid transtibial technique (HTT) technique using medial portal guidance of a flexible transtibial guide wire without the need for knee hyperflexion may combine the strengths of both the AM and TT approaches. The authors hypothesized that this HTT technique would achieve anatomic femoral tunnel apertures similar to the AM technique, but with longer and less angulated femoral tunnels similar to a TT technique.Methods:A prospective randomized controlled trial was implemented where 30 consecutive patients with acute, primary ACL tears were randomized to receive a TT, AM or HTT technique for their reconstruction. A total of 46 patients were assessed for eligibility in the investigation (Figure 1). All patients underwent 3D CT scans of the operative knee 6 weeks postoperatively to characterize tunnel positions. Femoral and tibial tunnel aperture positions and tunnel lengths, as well as the graft bending angle in the sagittal and coronal plane were measured.Results:There were no significant differences between the patient demographics of the three groups. Tibial tunnel lengths and aperture positions were identical between the three groups. The AM portal and HTT techniques achieved identical femoral aperture positions in regards to both height (p=0.75) and depth (p=0.72). On the other hand, compared to the AM portal and HTT techniques, respectively, femoral apertures created by the TT technique were significantly higher (p<0.001 and p<0.001) and shallower (p=0.001 and p<0.001) in the notch. The average femoral tunnel lengths varied significantly between the three groups measuring 35.16 mm, 41.64 mm, and 54.13 mm for the AM, HTT and TT groups, respectively (p<0.001). Lastly, there were no differences between the average coronal (164.0 degrees versus 158.8 degrees, p=0.190) and sagittal (114.0 degrees versus 111.0 degrees, p=0.358) graft bending angles between the TT and HTT groups, respectively. By contrast, compared to the TT and HTT groups, respectively, the graft bending angles created with an AM technique were significantly more acutely angled in the coronal (146.3 degrees, p<0.001, p<0.006) and sagittal (100.5 degrees, p=0.014, p=0.013) planes.Conclusion:The HTT technique achieves femoral aperture positions equally as anatomic as an AM portal technique, but with longer and less acutely oriented grafts similar to a transtibial approach. These advantages will decrease the incidence of graft tunnel mismatch as well as reduce the amount of stress imparted onto the graft by avoiding an acute graft bending angle. As such, this hybrid approach may represent a beneficial combination of both transtibial and AM portal techniques.

Comparison of clinical results of anteromedial and transtibial femoral tunnel drilling in ACL reconstruction

BackgroundA femoral bone tunnel in ACL reconstruction can be constructed from the outside in or from the inside out. When doing it inside out, the approach can be via the anteromedial (AM) portal or through the tibial bone tunnel. It has been suggested that better results might be expected by doing it anteromedially. Clinical results after femoral tunnel drilling via the AM or transtibial (TT) techniques in reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are presented.MethodsThree hundred patients with ACL injuries were chosen for this study from previously collected data on ACL reconstructions. They were divided into two groups: 150 patients treated with AM drilling and 150 treated with TT drilling. In the AM group, the reconstructions were performed using a semitendinosus graft with the 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 and IKDC) and instrumented laxity measurements (KT-2000™). Our aim was to evaluate if there was better rotational stability and therefore better clinical results when using AM drilling compared to TT drilling.ResultsAfter excluding revision ACL reconstructions, there were 132 patients in the AM group and 133 in the TT group for evaluation. At the 2-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 between the groups in any of the evaluation methods used.ConclusionBoth drilling techniques resulted in improved patient performance and satisfaction. We found no data supporting the hypothesis that the AM drilling technique provides better rotational stability to the knee.Trial registrationISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN16407730. Retrospectively registered Jan 9th 2020.

Does Bone Plug and Graft Orientation (Inferior Versus Posterior) Alter Native Femoral Footprint Coverage in Bone Patellar Tendon Bone Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

The purpose of this study was to compare the percentage of native femoral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) footprint covered by the 2 most clinically relevant bone plug/graft orientations used with interference screw fixation in ACL reconstruction. A secondary purpose was to assess whether a transtibial or tibia-independent drilling technique would affect this outcome. Five matched pairs of cadaver knees were used. Each matched pair had 1 knee assigned to a 10-mm femoral socket prepared via a transtibial (TT) drilling technique and the other via an anteromedial (AM) drilling technique. The bone plug of each graft was press-fitted into the femoral socket with the graft collagen in 2 distinct clinically relevant orientations (collagen inferior or posterior). The digitized graft collagen cross-sectional area(CSA) in each orientation was overlaid onto the native femoral ACL footprint CSA to generate a percentage of native ACL footprint covered by graft collagen. The average native ACL femoral footprint CSA was 110.5 ± 9.1 mm2, with no difference between knees assigned to TT or AM drilling (112.6 ± 2.7 vs 108.4 ± 13.0 mm2, P=.49). The average femoral socket CSA was 95.4 ± 8.7 mm2, with no difference between TT and AM tunnels (95.5 ± 9.9 vs 95.3 ± 8.4 mm2, P= .96). There was no difference between the percentage of native footprint covered between TT and AM sockets (76.8% ± 7.8% vs 82.2% ± 13.7%, P= .47). Irrespective of drilling technique, there was significantly greater native ACL footprint covered by graft collagen when the bone plug was oriented with graft collagen inferior rather than posterior (75.6% ± 6.3% vs 65.4% ± 11.4%, P= .02). Orienting the femoral bone plug such that the graft collagen is inferior rather than posterior significantly increases native ACL femoral footprint coverage in bone-patellar tendon-bone ACL reconstruction. This effect is consistent across AM and TT drilling techniques. Surgeons attempting to restore an anatomic ACL footprint should consider bone plug-graft orientation when performing ACL reconstruction. Controlled laboratory study.

Preferences in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport: A survey among surgeons in the Netherlands

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the preferences of surgeons on technique for femoral tunnel placement, graft selection and criteria for return to sport in the Netherlands. MethodsA web-based survey among the Dutch Association of Arthroscopy was conducted. ResultsA total of 125 members (24.0%) were included in the analysis. A total of 87.2% (n = 109) used hamstring autografts for primary ACL reconstruction followed by patellar tendon autograft (n = 11, 8.8%) and quadriceps tendon autograft (n = 5, 4.0%). The anteromedial technique was favored by 50.4% (n = 63), whereas 11.2% (n = 14) of the participants favored the transtibial technique. Return to sport after 9 months of primary ACL reconstruction was allowed by 75.2% (n = 94) of the participants. Regarding criteria to evaluate readiness to return to sport, the surgeons stated postoperative period (n = 107, 85.6%) and functional performance tests (n = 96, 76.8%) as important. ConclusionThe majority of the participants of the Dutch Association of Arthroscopy favored the hamstring autografts for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Furthermore, most participants stated postoperative time and functional performance tests as important criteria to evaluate readiness to return to sport. This is the first survey demonstrating a high preference of surgeons to use functional performance tests in the decision-making of readiness to return to sport.

ACL Reconstruction Graft Angle and Outcomes: Transtibial vs Anteromedial Reconstruction.

The importance of creating an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been receiving significant attention. The best technique by which to achieve this anatomic reconstruction continues to be debated. The two most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and the literature comparing the two remains uncertain. In this prospective comparative study, we aimed to compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles achieved using the anatomic transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques; compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles in knees that have undergone ACL reconstruction and knees with intact ACLs; and determine whether differences in the graft or tunnel angle produce differences in clinical outcomes, as measured using both physical exam and patient-reported outcomes, after ACL reconstruction. Patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone grafts using a TT or AM technique were included. Femoral graft angle (FGA), tibial graft angle (TGA), and sagittal orientation of the reconstructed ACL and contralateral native ACL were measured on post-operative magnetic resonance imaging. Post-operatively, patients underwent measurement of knee stability and completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) survey. Twenty-nine patients were enrolled (AM group, 14; TT group, 15); at follow-up, KOOS data were available for 26 patients (13 in each group). There were no differences in sagittal ACL graft angle between groups or in comparison with the normal knee. The FGA was more vertical after TT reconstructions; the TGA was comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in 2-year post-operative physical exam measurements or in KOOS scores. Anatomic ACL angle was restored after reconstruction with both the TT and AM techniques, despite different FGAs. No significant differences in clinical outcome were noted between groups on physical exam or KOOS at 2years after surgery. These results suggest that TT reconstruction results in a graft position similar to that seen in AM reconstruction and that the location of the intra-articular tunnel aperture matters more than the orientation of the tunnel.

How anatomical is our tunnel? A three dimensional CT evaluation of femoral tunnel in anatomic anteromedial single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; ACL reconstruction has become a common orthopaedic procedure. The anatomy and biomechanics of ACL have been one of the most researched and debated topics in the orthopaedic literature. This has implication on the surgical procedure too with shift from traditional transtibial to more anatomic anteromedial ACL reconstruction. Anteromedial technique results in more anatomic femoral tunnel with graft positioned at the native insertion site. The tunnel position is crucial for better outcome after ACL reconstruction. The purpose of the study was to ascertain the femoral tunnel position made by anatomic single bundle reconstruction with the help of three dimensional computer tomography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; A prospective case series involving thirty patients with ACL tear who underwent anteromedial single bundle ACL reconstruction. Computer tomography scans were performed on thirty knees that underwent single bundle anteromedial ACL reconstruction. Three dimensional models were created and the data was analyzed according to coordinate system method. Femoral tunnel position was measured in proximal to distal and posterior to anterior directions. This data was compared with the already published reference data on anatomical tunnel position.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; Femoral tunnel centre on the medial wall of lateral femoral condyle was located at 35±9% in the posterior to anterior direction. In the proximal to distal direction, the tunnel was placed at 30±12%. Femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly as compared to anatomic anteromedial and posterolateral tunnel position. There was no significant difference in tunnel position in proximal to distal direction.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/strong&gt; Femoral tunnel centre on the medial wall of lateral femoral condyle was located at 35±9% in the posterior to anterior direction. In the proximal to distal direction, the tunnel was placed at 30±12%. Femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly as compared to anatomic anteromedial and posterolateral tunnel position. There was no significant difference in tunnel position in proximal to distal direction.&lt;/p&gt;

Femoral tunnel position in chronic anterior cruciate ligament rupture reconstruction: randomized controlled trial comparing anatomic, biomechanical and clinical outcomes

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral tunnel positioning techniques for the reconstruction of chronic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. It is a randomized prospective study of 106 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction because of a chronic ACL rupture (55 AMT, 51 TT). Minimum follow-up was 2years. Demographic, clinical and radiological data, including MRI grafts' anatomy and biomechanics intraoperative navigation system evaluation, were analyzed. Also, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Tegner Knee score, Lysholm Knee Score, Short-Form Health Survey and 4-point Likert Scale were evaluated. The AM technique achieves a more anatomic graft than TT technique in both sagittal and coronal plane (6° approximately). Immediate postoperative biomechanical evaluation of the graft showed both techniques significantly improved translational and rotational laxity (p = 0.000). AMT showed superiority only in controlling internal rotation (p = 0.016). Both techniques reported significant improvement in all evaluated score scales, without differences between techniques. Independently of the femoral tunnel positioning technique, patients with cartilage lesion had worse clinical outcomes. Our findings suggest that AMT achieves a more anatomical and biomechanically accurate graft allowing better control over internal rotation laxity; however, this does not lead to better clinical outcomes if we compare with TT in the reconstruction of chronic ACL rupture. Patients with chronic ACL rupture and cartilage lesion had worse clinical outcomes, independently the femoral tunnel positioning technique.

Anteromedial versus trans-tibial technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring graft: a comparative study

&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; Femoral tunnel position plays a pivotal role for successful outcome in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgeries. Recently, the anteromedial techniques have gained popularity over the trans-tibial technique due to better anatomical position and better stability rotationally and antero-posteriorly then the later. The aim of the present study was to compare the technical difficulty and ease, functional and radiological outcome of trans-tibial and anteromedial portal techniques in ACL reconstruction.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; Thirty patients between March 2015 and February 2016 with ACL tear underwent arthroscopic reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring graft and were divided into two groups A (anteromedial) and group B (trans-tibial) as per the technique used. Patients with multiligament injuries, revision surgeries, and osteoarthritis knee were excluded. All the patients were followed-up for 24 months and clinical Lysholm and IKDC scores along with radiological outcome were calculated.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; The mean age of patients were 32.4±6.3 years. Isolated ACL tear was seen in 16 (53.4%) cases followed by medial meniscus injury in 11 (36.6%) patients. The mean duration between injury and surgery was 14.8±8.99 and 21.6±3.23 days in group A and B respectively (p=0.0122). The radiological position of femoral tunnel in sagittal and coronal plane was statistically significant in both the groups. The Lysholm and IKDC scores showed statistically significant difference at 3 months post-operatively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/strong&gt; Anteromedial and trans-tibial techniques have similar long term functional outcomes. However, more anatomical position of the graft through the anteromedial technique and better rotational and anteroposterior stability makes it theoretically to be superior to the trans-tibial technique.&lt;/p&gt;

Anteromedial Portal Drilling Yielded Better Survivorship of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions When Comparing Recent Versus Early Surgeries With This Technique

To compare anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral drilling hole techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register, comparing revision rates and clinical outcomes from 2 time periods, 2007 to 2010 and 2012 to2015. A total of 8,386 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were registered between January 2007 to December 2010 and 8,818 in the period January 2012 to December 2015. Revision ACL was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the objective and subjective clinical outcomes. Crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated. The adjusted RR for revision surgery in the AM (2007-10) group compared with the TT (2007-10) group was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.78; P < .05), but when comparing the AM (2012-15) group with TT (2012-15) group, the RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.68-1.45; P= .96). One-year postoperative objective stability testing showed an RR= 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.60; P < .01) for rotational stability and an RR= 1.37 (95% CI, 0.99-1.89; P < .01) for sagittal stability when comparing AM (2007-10) to TT (2007-10). No significant difference in objective stability was found in the more recent period. Lastly, comparing the subjective scores, the AM (2012-15) had a significantly higher Tegner score 1year postoperatively compared with the TT-group (2012-15). This study found an increased RR of revision anterior cruciate ligament and rotational and sagittal instability 1year postoperatively for the AM technique in the period from 2007 to 2010. However, there was no significant difference in revision surgery and objective measures between the techniques from 2012 to 2015. Nevertheless, a higher activity level was found in the AM group. The results could indicate that the results found in the period 2007 to 2010 may have been caused by a learning curve when introducing a new and more complex procedure (AM). Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Complications and technical failures are rare in knee ligament reconstruction: analyses based on 31,326 reconstructions during 10years in Denmark.

Knowledge about treatment injuries (technical failures and complications) in relation to knee ligament reconstructions is sparse. Our purpose was to describe treatment injuries to knee ligament reconstruction in Denmark during a 10-year period and to suggest initiatives to reduce the risk for treatment injuries. Treatment injuries after knee ligament reconstructions reported to the Danish Patient Compensation Association (DPCA) 2005-2014 were analyzed and compared to information from the Danish Kneeligament Reconstruction Register and Danish National Patient Register. The number of knee ligament reconstructions in Denmark 2005-2014, including revisions, was 31,326. Of the 704 cases claimed to DPCA, 371 were approved as treatment injuries (1.42% of all operations). Tunnel malpositioning (135 = 0.43% of all operations), deep infection (0.27%), nerve injury (0.17%), pain (0.12%) and unrecognized combined instability (0.11%) were the most common. Patients operated with anteromedial technique for femoral tunnel placement had a lower incidence (p < 0.0001) of tunnel malpositioning compared to other techniques. Public and private hospitals had the same risk of treatment injures. Hospitals that performed the largest number of reconstructions/year had the smallest risk of a treatment injury (p < 0.001). The total compensation was 7.6m EURO, which equals 243 EURO/performed knee ligament reconstruction. Treatment injuries as defined in this study were rare, with tunnel malpositioning being the most common. Analyses of the results indicate that it may be clinically relevant to reduce the number of treatment injures that knee ligament reconstructions are concentrated in clinics with high volume. Also, malpositioning might be reduced by routine documentation of K-wire position before tunnels are drilled. III.