Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki 036-8562, Japan.
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):698-706. doi: 10.1177/0363546509351561. Epub 2010 Feb 5.
Several laboratory studies have pointed out a potential risk of femoral tunnel misplacement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a transtibial technique. The tunnel malposition away from the anatomic attachment may result in increased postoperative knee laxity in double-bundle reconstruction.
This study was conducted to evaluate the femoral and tibial tunnel positions in transtibial double-bundle reconstruction, and to determine the relationship between the tunnel positions and the results of the postoperative knee laxity examinations.
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Fifty-three of 71 patients who underwent transtibial double-bundle reconstruction from 2004 to 2005 were followed more than 24 months. The tunnel positions for the anteromedial and posterolateral grafts were measured using 3-dimensional computed tomography images applying the quadrant method. The postoperative knee laxity was examined with the KT-1000 arthrometer manual maximum test, anterior drawer test, and pivot-shift test.
The deep-shallow position (parallel to Blumensaat's line) and high-low position (perpendicular to Blumensaat's line) of the femoral tunnels were 27.7% +/- 5.6% from the most posterior condylar contour and 16.3% +/- 5.2% from Blumensaat's line for the anteromedial graft, and 35.5% +/- 6.4% and 48.0% +/- 5.4% for the posterolateral graft. The medial-lateral and anterior-posterior positions of the tibial tunnels were 46.1% +/- 2.6% from the most medial contour and 36.5% +/- 4.9% from the most anterior contour for the anteromedial graft, and 47.5% +/- 3.1% and 51.6% +/- 5.0% for the posterolateral graft. There was no statistical correlation between any parameters of the femoral or tibial tunnel position and the results of the knee laxity tests.
The femoral tunnels placed in transtibial double-bundle reconstruction were located appropriately in high-low and deep-shallow orientation, but had larger variability than the previously reported data of the anatomic femoral attachment. However, the variability of the femoral tunnel position was not so large as to result in graft insufficiency with increased postoperative knee laxity.
多项实验室研究指出,经胫骨技术行前交叉韧带重建时,股骨隧道存在发生错位的潜在风险。如果隧道位置偏离解剖附着点,可能会导致双束重建术后膝关节松弛度增加。
本研究旨在评估经胫骨双束重建中股骨和胫骨隧道的位置,并确定隧道位置与术后膝关节松弛检查结果之间的关系。
病例系列;证据水平,4 级。
2004 年至 2005 年期间,71 例患者中有 53 例行经胫骨双束重建,随访时间超过 24 个月。使用三维 CT 图像的象限法测量前内侧和后外侧移植物的隧道位置。采用 KT-1000 关节测量器手动最大测试、前抽屉试验和前向轴移试验检查术后膝关节松弛度。
股骨隧道的深-浅位置(与 Blumensaat 线平行)和高-低位置(与 Blumensaat 线垂直)对于前内侧移植物分别为最靠后髁轮廓的 27.7% +/- 5.6%和 Blumensaat 线的 16.3% +/- 5.2%,对于后外侧移植物分别为 35.5% +/- 6.4%和 48.0% +/- 5.4%。胫骨隧道的内-外侧和前-后位置对于前内侧移植物分别为最内侧轮廓的 46.1% +/- 2.6%和最前轮廓的 36.5% +/- 4.9%,对于后外侧移植物分别为 47.5% +/- 3.1%和 51.6% +/- 5.0%。股骨或胫骨隧道位置的任何参数与膝关节松弛测试结果均无统计学相关性。
经胫骨双束重建中股骨隧道的位置适当,处于高-低和深-浅方向,但与先前报道的解剖股骨附着点数据相比,存在更大的变异性。然而,股骨隧道位置的变异性还没有大到导致移植物不足,从而增加术后膝关节松弛度。