Suppr超能文献

后交叉韧带重建中的解剖股骨隧道:从内到外与从外到内钻孔。

Anatomic femoral tunnels in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: inside-out versus outside-in drilling.

机构信息

University of Minnesota, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Minneapolis, 55454, USA.

出版信息

Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jan;41(1):43-50. doi: 10.1177/0363546512465169. Epub 2012 Nov 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

During posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction, the placement and orientation of the femoral tunnel is critical to postoperative PCL function.

PURPOSE

To compare the ability of outside-in (OI) versus inside-out (IO) femoral tunnel drilling in placing the femoral tunnel aperture within the anatomic femoral footprint of the PCL, and to evaluate the orientation of the tunnels within the medial femoral condyle.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Ten matched pairs of cadaver knees were randomized such that within each pair, 1 knee underwent arthroscopic OI drilling and the other underwent IO drilling. All knees underwent computed tomography (CT) both pre- and postoperatively with a technique optimized for ligament evaluation (80 keV with maximum mAs). Commercially available third-party software was used to fuse the pre- and postoperative CT scans, allowing comparison of the PCL footprint to the drilled tunnel. The percentage of tunnel aperture contained within the native footprint, as well as the distance from the center of the tunnel aperture to the center of the footprint, were measured. In addition, the orientation of the tunnels in the coronal and axial planes was evaluated.

RESULTS

The OI technique placed 70.4% ± 23.7% of the tunnel within the native femoral footprint compared with 79.8% ± 16.7% for the IO technique (P = .32). The OI technique placed the center of the femoral tunnel 4.9 ± 2.2 mm from the center of the native footprint compared to 5.3 ± 2.0 mm for the IO technique (P = .65). The femoral tunnel angle in the coronal plane was 21.0° ± 9.9° for the OI technique and 37.0° ± 10.3° for the IO technique (P = .002). The tunnel angle in the axial plane was 27.3° ± 4.8° for the OI technique and 39.1° ± 11.5° for the IO technique (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates no difference in the ability of the OI and IO techniques to place the femoral tunnel within the PCL femoral footprint during PCL reconstruction. With the technique parameters used in this study, the IO technique created femoral tunnels with a more vertical and anterior orientation than the OI technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Either technique can be used to place the femoral tunnel within the anatomic footprint. Consideration should be given to tunnel orientation following each technique, and what effect it has on graft bending angles, as these characteristics may affect graft strain and, ultimately, graft failure. In this regard, the IO technique likely produces gentler graft bending angles.

摘要

背景

在后交叉韧带(PCL)重建过程中,股骨隧道的位置和方向对于术后 PCL 的功能至关重要。

目的

比较经皮入路(OI)与经关节入路(IO)股骨隧道钻取技术在将股骨隧道开口放置于 PCL 解剖学股骨附着点内的能力,并评估隧道在股骨内髁内的方向。

研究设计

对照实验室研究。

方法

10 对匹配的尸体膝关节随机分组,每组内 1 膝行关节镜下 OI 钻孔,另 1 膝行 IO 钻孔。所有膝关节均行术前和术后 CT 检查,采用韧带评估优化的技术(80keV 最大 mAs)。使用商业上可获得的第三方软件融合术前和术后 CT 扫描,以比较 PCL 足迹与钻孔隧道。测量隧道开口的百分比包含在原生足迹内,以及从隧道开口中心到足迹中心的距离。此外,还评估了隧道在冠状面和矢状面的方向。

结果

OI 技术将 70.4%±23.7%的隧道放置在原生股骨足迹内,而 IO 技术为 79.8%±16.7%(P=.32)。OI 技术将股骨隧道中心放置在距原生足迹中心 4.9±2.2mm 处,而 IO 技术为 5.3±2.0mm(P=.65)。OI 技术的冠状面股骨隧道角度为 21.0°±9.9°,IO 技术为 37.0°±10.3°(P=.002)。OI 技术的轴向隧道角度为 27.3°±4.8°,IO 技术为 39.1°±11.5°(P=.01)。

结论

本研究表明,在 PCL 重建过程中,OI 和 IO 技术在将股骨隧道放置于 PCL 股骨附着点内的能力方面没有差异。在本研究中使用的技术参数下,与 OI 技术相比,IO 技术产生的股骨隧道具有更垂直和更靠前的方向。

临床相关性

两种技术均可用于将股骨隧道放置于解剖学足迹内。应考虑每种技术后的隧道方向,以及它对移植物弯曲角度的影响,因为这些特征可能会影响移植物的应变,最终影响移植物的失效。在这方面,IO 技术可能产生更温和的移植物弯曲角度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验