Transtibial Method Research Articles

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL RESTORATION IN PATIENTS AFTER ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION USING «BONE-TENDON-BONE» AUTOGRAFT

Injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee joint, while remaining one of its most common types of injury, cause restriction of physical activity in people leading an active lifestyle, due to the occurrence of biomechanical disorders. The generally accepted approach of surgical correction is aimed at replacing the lost structure in order to approach the motor norm of the preserved elements of the joint. The presented publication reflects the results of arthroscopic surgical reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with an autograft from the patellar ligament by anatomical and transtibial methods. The main methods of diagnosing tears of the anterior cruciate ligament were clinical and instrumental studies, including manual testing, radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, hardware arthrometry. A total of 134 patients with long-standing damage to the anterior cruciate ligament and chronic anterior instability of the knee joint were treated, which were divided into two groups according to the method of plastic surgery. Complete recovery of the level of physical activity and return to sports were observed in the majority of patients of both clinical groups.

Transphyseal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hybrid Transtibial Femoral Drilling and a Quadriceps Tendon Autograft

Significant controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical technique for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in adolescents with 1 to 3 years of skeletal growth remaining. Graft choice and physeal injury remain primary concerns given significantly elevated rates of failure of hamstring autograft reconstructions in this population, as well as risks of leg-length discrepancy and growth axis deviation. Traditional (more vertical) transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel can reduce risks of physeal injury but has been shown to have less accuracy restoring the native femoral ACL footprint and associated incomplete knee stabilization. On the other hand, anteromedial and outside-in drilling yields improvements in the tunnel location and biomechanics but at the cost of a more oblique trajectory and greater risk of physeal injury. A hybrid transtibial pin technique using a Pathfinder guide facilitates femoral drilling with the “best of both worlds,” allowing for reproduction of the native ACL footprint and a more physeal-respecting femoral tunnel. When combined with an all–soft tissue quadriceps tendon autograft and suspensory fixation, the hybrid transtibial method yields a reliable, safe, and robust construct with promising results for the young athlete. We describe our preferred graft harvest, tunnel drilling, and fixation techniques to minimize physeal risks and optimize outcomes.

Transportal Verses Transtibial Femoral Tunneling Techniques for Acl Reconstruction

Purpose of study was to look at the practical and clinical results of transportal and transtibial approaches for penetrating of femoral passage in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction.The prospective study which was conducted at department of orthopedics. All patients worked with arthroscopic ACL age were screened using the thought and shirking measures, instructed consent was taken and the willing patients were fused . Total eighty patients who were operated were remembered for this examination.The mean age of the patients was 26.0 years in bundle I and 24.3 years in pack II.Average time of patients were 26 in the transportal gathering and 24.3 in the transtibial gathering.The majority of males i.e. 90% males in transportal group and 86.6% males in the transtibial group. Majority of ACL tears were on the right side 58% in both the groups.In both the groups’ medial meniscus injury was more commonly related with ACL tear as compared to lateral meniscus tear, 30% in the transtibial group and 23.3% in the transportal group.The average IKDC score, Lysholm knee score, pain on VAS score of transportal patients was basically higher than transtibial patients at a half year improvement .Complication of frailty was progressively ordinary in transtibial patients, 11(36.7%), when stood out from transportal patients, 9(30%), in any case this differentiation was not imperative [P=0.58].Arthroscopic ACL Reconstruction using transportal and transtibial methods of femoral tunneling are both amazing modalities of treatment in patients with ACL lacking knees.

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.

Posterior Cruciate Ligament All-Inside Reconstruction.

Several techniques for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction have been described. Reported clinical outcomes for the various techniques are often affected by concomitant injuries. Therefore, the optimal surgical technique choice remains controversial. Variations include transtibial versus tibial inlay, single-bundle versus double-bundle, and autograft versus allograft. The all-inside technique has recently been described as a transtibial method that uses adjustable loop suspensory fixation through sockets rather than tunnels on both the femur and tibia. This technique preserves more bone and may decrease the risk of tunnel convergence during multiligament reconstruction or concomitant meniscus procedures. This paper outlines the options available to surgeons performing PCL reconstruction and describes the authors' preferred technique for all-inside PCL reconstruction.

Tibial Inlay Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament is typically made through either tibial inlay or transtibial methods. Double-bundle reconstruction can be combined with either technique and has clear biomechanical advantages. On the basis of prior evidence and the author's own surgical experiences, this technique paper provides the reasoning for using these methods. Further evidence and reasoning is given for when to use the inlay technique rather than the transtibial technique for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

All-Inside Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction via the Transtibial Approach With a Laser-Tip Guide System for Drilling

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an all-inside method to reduce bone damage caused by drill hole preparation and enhance the stability of the reconstructed ligament in the drill hole has been reported in recent years. We made a custom-designed drill guide pin and reamer, which are assembled in the joint, to create drill holes in the femur and tibia. For the transtibial method, our femoral drill hole–positioning technique, which uses a laser, is extremely convenient for accurate positioning of the drill holes. Therefore, a combination of these methods facilitates implementation of the all-inside double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique.

Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study.

BackgroundTo evaluate the length and position of femoral tunnel,and exam whether knee stability and clinical functional outcomes are superior in AMP method.MethodsFrom August 2014 to February 2015, we prospectively recruited 104 patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. They were randomized to anteromedial portal or transtibial method. All patients underwent Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score,Tegner score at pre-operative and last follow-up point as subjective assessment of clinical function. The Lachman test, the Pivot-shift test and KT-1000 were performed at the last follow-up as a evaluation of knee joint stability. We measured the length of femoral tunnel intraoperatively and at 1 week post-operatively, CT-based three-dimensional reconstruction was used to assess femoral tunnel location.ResultsThe average follow-up time of anteromedial portal group was 25.7 ± 6.8 months (range:12–36.5 months), and the average follow-up time of the transtibial group was 24.9 ± 6.0 months (range:12–37 months). There was no significant difference between the groups pre-operative Lysholm score, IKDC score and Tegner scores. Both groups showed significantly improvement in these clinical function scores at follow up for their ACL reconstruction. However, there was no significant difference in the function scores between the two groups at last follow up. However, the mean femoral tunnel length in the anteromedial portal group was significantly shorter than that in the transtibial group. And tunnel location was significantly lower and deeper with the anteromedial portal technique than with the transtibial technique.ConclusionThe use of anteromedial portal method resulted in a significantly lower and deeper placement of the femoral tunnel, and a shorter tunnel length compared to the transtibial method. However, there was no statistical difference in terms of clinical function and knee joint stability between the anteromedial portal method and the transtibial method.Trial registrationName of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry.The registration number: ChiCTR1800014874.The date of registration: 12 February, 2018.The study is retrospectively registered.

Tibiofemoral joint contact area and stress after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transtibial versus anteromedial portal drilling techniques

BackgroundDuring single-bundle ACLR, femoral tunnel location plays an important role in restoring the intact knee mechanisms, whereas malplacement of the tunnel was cited as the most common cause of knee instability. The objective of this study is to evaluate, objectively, the tibiofemoral contact area and stress after single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with femoral tunnel positions drilled by transtibial (TT) or anteromedial (AM) portal techniques.MethodsSeven fresh human cadaveric knees underwent ACLR by the use of TT or AM portal techniques in a randomized order. These specimens were reused for ACL-R (TT and AM). The tibiofemoral contact area and stresses were gauged by an electronic stress-sensitive film inserted into the joint space. The knee was under the femoral axial compressive load of 1000 N using a biomechanics testing machine at 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30° of flexion. Three conditions were compared: (1) intact ACL, (2) ACLR by the use of the TT method, and (3) ACLR by the use of the AM portal method.ResultsCompared with AM portal ACL-reconstructed knees, a significantly decreased tibiofemoral contact area on the medial compartment was detected in the TT ACL-reconstructed knees at 20°of knee flexion (P = .047). Compared with the intact group, the TT ACLR group showed a higher mean stress at 20° and 30° of flexion on the medial compartments (P = .001, P = .003, respectively), while the AM portal ACLR group showed no significant differences at 30° of flexion (P = .073). The TT ACLR group also showed a higher mean maximum stress at 20° of flexion on the medial compartments (P = .047), while the AM portal ACLR group showed no significant differences at this angle(P = .319).DiscussionThe alternation of the tibiofemoral joint contact area and stress in reconstructed knees may be caused by the mismatch of the tibiofemoral joint during knee movement procedures compared with intact knees.ConclusionsSB ACLR by the use of the AM portal method and TT method both alter the tibiofemoral contact area and stress when compared with the intact knee. When compared with the TT technique, ACLR by the AM portal technique more closely restores the intact tibiofemoral contact area and stress at low flexion angles.

Technique for Arthroscopic-Assisted Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Doubled Tibialis Anterior Tendon

Advances in surgical technique and our knowledge of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy have resulted in a marked increase in options for ACL reconstruction. Currently, patient age and activity level, surgeon preference and experience, and cost are factors influencing the type of reconstruction recommended to address knee instability. We present a simplified transtibial method of ACL reconstruction using a single-bundle, doubled tibialis anterior allograft. This method uses fixation with a suspensory device on the femur and a bio-composite interference screw on the tibia. We recommend this simplified technique for primary ACL reconstruction because it minimizes total steps, thus limiting variance, maximizing efficiency, and reducing potential technical error.

Comparison of MRI Results of Grafts Obtained by Unilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Either Using Anteromedial Portal Only or Transtibial Method with Contralateral Healthy Knee

Objectives:Our aim is to compare graft angles and tibial tunnel insertion in patients undergone single bundle ligament reconstruction using anatomical anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) method with the contralateral healthy knee by using MR imaging. And to investigate correlation of this evaluation with functional results.Methods:We investigated 96 knees of 48 patients undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with AM or TT method. 23 of 48 patients were operated with AM method. These patients were named as Group A. 25 patients were operated with TT method and named as group B. MRI was taken for both knees in each group postoperatively at the mean 10.47 (9-15) and 11.72 (9-17) months, respectively. Angle between ACL graft and anatomical axis of tibia in coronal and sagittal plane, [Sagittal ACL graft angle (SAGA), Frontal ACL graft angle (FAGA)], middle insertion point on tibial articular surface, [ Sagittal ACL middle point (SGMP), Frontal ACL tibial tunnel middle point (FTMP), and Sagittal ACL tibial tunnel middle point(STMP)] was assessed by three orthopaedic surgeons. Values in both groups, inter observer, values between operated and healthy knees and differences between two groups were statistically evaluated. Functional scores between operated and healthy knees were evaluated with the Lysholm scoring system.Results:Inter observer results were statistically significant in group A between operated and healthy knees for 1st and 2nd observers in SAGA values and for 1st and 3rd, and 2nd and 3rd observers in FAGA values (p<0.05). In group B there was statistically significant difference in SAGA values for 1st and 2nd, and for 2nd and 3rd observers and in FTMP values for 1st and 3rd, and 2nd and 3rd observers (p<0.05). Statistically significant difference was detected between SAGA, FAGA and SGMP values of operated and healthy knees of A and B groups in all three observers’ evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was detected between STMP values of operated knees and SGMP values of healthy knees in both groups (p>0.05). Statistically significant difference was detected between SAGA and FAGA values of operated knees in both groups (p<0.05). There was statistically significant difference in Lysholm scores between group A and B (p<0.05). Nonetheless there was no statistically significant difference between the Lysholm scores of operated knees in A and B groups (p>0.05).Conclusion:ACL reconstruction surgery with TT and AM methods do not provide anatomical reconstruction in Sagittal plane. Moreover, functional results were not as good as contralateral healthy knees. Although tibial tunnel was in anatomical position in both TT and AM methods, the posterior insertion of graft is thought to be the result of anterior placement of interference screw.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Can optimal graft placement be achieved with a free-hand drilled transtibial technique?

Objective: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are common among athletes and active individuals participating in sports. ACL reconstruction using the single-bundle technique can be performed through transtibial or anteromedial portals. The transtibial technique carries the theoretical risk of vertical placement of the femoral tunnel in the intercondylar notch. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a free-hand drilled-transtibial technique in achieving optimal graft positioning. Materials and Methods: We analyzed a retrospective series of post-operative knee radiographs in 52 consecutive patients who underwent a single-bundle ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon using this transtibial method, from June 2009 to January 2010. Tunnel positioning was radiographically assessed by an independent single observer, who was not involved in the management of patients. The graft inclination angle, the coronal and the sagittal femoral and tibial tunnel placements were evaluated. Results: Post-operative radiographs of 40 patients (40 knees) were retrospectively evaluated for femoral and tibial tunnel positioning. In the coronal plane, the mean graft inclination angle was 21°, the femoral tunnel was positioned at a mean of 43% lateral to the lateral femoral condyle and the tibial tunnel at a mean of 46% lateral to the medial border of the medial tibial plateau. In the sagittal plane, the femoral tunnel was placed at 84% posteriorly across Blumensaat's line and the tibial tunnel at a mean of 43% along the length of the tibial plateau. The results were consistent with optimal tunnel positioning according to anatomic and clinical studies. Conclusion: The transtibial technique described in this series can achieve optimal tunnel positioning for single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Intertunnel Relationships in Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction

Background: Combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries are relatively common, and tunnel convergence could occur in combined ACL and PLC reconstruction. Purpose: This study sought to elucidate the ranges of angles and distances of lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and popliteus tendon (PT) femoral tunnels that do not violate the intercondylar notch distally and ACL tunnels proximally during combined ACL and PLC reconstruction. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Three-dimensional anatomic knee models were developed using customized software from computed tomography images of 14 patients at 0°, 90°, and 120° of flexion. Single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) ACL tunnels using the transtibial method for anteromedial bundles and the anteromedial portal method for posterolateral bundles were created. The ranges of safe angles and distances were measured at 10° and 20° posterior, neutral (0°), and 10° and 20° anterior on the horizontal plane relative to the transepicondylar axis from the isometric LCL and PT femoral insertions. The SB ACL reconstruction using the accessory medial portal and LCL reconstruction using the anatomic footprint were also analyzed. Results: Distal and proximal angles from insertions of the LCL and PT, not violating the intercondylar notch or the ACL tunnels, increased as the LCL or PT headed from a posterior to anterior direction. Safe distances from the LCL and PT femoral insertions were approximately over 35 mm distally and 30 mm proximally. For SB ACL reconstruction using the accessory medial portal, safe angles were larger proximally than those of SB ACL reconstruction using the transtibial technique. For LCL reconstruction using the anatomic footprint, proximal angles were significantly smaller than those of the isometric LCL. Conclusion: Considering the relationship between the LCL and PT tunnels and fixation strength, tunneling will be safe when the LCL and PT are positioned at an angle of approximately 20° anterior and 10° proximal to the transepicondylar axis. Clinical Relevance: These results will help to reduce the incidence of tunnel convergence in combined ACL and PLC reconstructions.