Department of Sports Medicine and Joint Surgery, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Aug;39(8):1789-99. doi: 10.1177/0363546511402659. Epub 2011 May 19.
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is a frequently performed orthopaedic procedure. Although short-term results are generally good, long-term outcomes are less favorable. Thus, there is renewed interest in improving surgical techniques. Recent studies of anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and function have characterized the 2-bundle structure of the native ligament. During non-weightbearing conditions, the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles display reciprocal tension patterns. However, during weightbearing, both the AM and PL bundles are maximally elongated at low flexion angles and shorten significantly with increasing knee flexion. Conventional single-bundle reconstruction techniques often result in nonanatomic tunnel placement, with a tibial PL to a femoral "high AM" tunnel position. In vitro studies have demonstrated that these nonanatomic single-bundle reconstructions cannot completely restore normal anterior-posterior or rotatory laxity. Cadaveric studies suggest that anatomic single-bundle and anatomic double-bundle reconstruction may better restore knee stability. Although many cadaver studies suggest that double-bundle reconstruction techniques result in superior stability when compared with single-bundle techniques, others failed to demonstrate a clear benefit of this more complex procedure. Cadaver studies generally do not apply physiologically relevant loads and provide only a "time-zero" assessment that ignores effects of healing and remodeling after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. In vivo, dynamic studies offer the most comprehensive assessment of knee function after injury or reconstruction, as they can evaluate dynamic stability during functional joint loading. Studies of knee kinematics during activities such as gait and running suggest that nonanatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fails to restore preinjury knee function under functional loading conditions. Similar studies of more anatomic single- and double-bundle surgical approaches are in progress, and preliminary results suggest that these anatomic techniques may be more effective for restoring preinjury knee function. However, more extensive, well-designed studies of both kinematics and long-term outcomes are warranted to characterize the potential benefits of more anatomic reconstruction techniques for improving long-term outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
前交叉韧带重建是一种经常进行的矫形手术。虽然短期结果通常较好,但长期结果不太理想。因此,人们对改善手术技术重新产生了兴趣。最近对前交叉韧带解剖结构和功能的研究表明,天然韧带具有 2 束结构。在非负重状态下,前内侧(AM)和后外侧(PL)束显示出相互拉紧的模式。然而,在负重状态下,AM 和 PL 束在低弯曲角度下均被最大程度地拉长,并且随着膝关节弯曲角度的增加而显著缩短。传统的单束重建技术通常导致非解剖隧道位置,即胫骨 PL 到股骨“高 AM”隧道位置。体外研究表明,这些非解剖单束重建无法完全恢复正常的前后或旋转松弛度。尸体研究表明,解剖单束和解剖双束重建可能更好地恢复膝关节稳定性。尽管许多尸体研究表明,与单束技术相比,双束重建技术可提供更好的稳定性,但其他研究未能证明这种更复杂的手术有明显的优势。尸体研究通常不施加生理相关的负荷,仅提供“时间为零”的评估,忽略了前交叉韧带重建后愈合和重塑的影响。在体内,动态研究提供了受伤或重建后膝关节功能最全面的评估,因为它们可以在功能性关节加载下评估动态稳定性。在步态和跑步等活动中膝关节运动学的研究表明,非解剖单束前交叉韧带重建在功能性负荷条件下无法恢复受伤前的膝关节功能。对更解剖单束和双束手术方法的类似研究正在进行中,初步结果表明,这些解剖技术可能更有效地恢复受伤前的膝关节功能。然而,需要进行更广泛、设计良好的运动学和长期结果研究,以确定更解剖重建技术改善前交叉韧带重建后长期结果的潜在益处。