Lee Byung Hoon, Bansal Samarjit, Park Sin Hyung, Wang Joon Ho
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Am J Sports Med. 2015 May;43(5):1180-8. doi: 10.1177/0363546514568278. Epub 2015 Feb 10.
Ellipticity of the femoral tunnel aperture, which is considered to better restore the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) footprint after ACL reconstruction, is different according to the femoral tunneling technique used. How much of the femoral tunnel aperture is filled with graft in different tunneling techniques has yet to be evaluated.
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the graft filling area and graft position within the femoral tunnel aperture in ACL reconstruction using the transportal (TP) and outside-in (OI) techniques.
Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
A total of 70 patients were randomized to undergo double-bundle ACL reconstruction using either the TP (n=35) or OI (n=35) technique. The aperture filling was evaluated by calculating the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the graft to that of the femoral tunnel, and the graft center position within the tunnel was assessed using immediate postoperative magnetic resonance imaging.
The cross-sectional area of the femoral anteromedial (AM) tunnel aperture in the TP group (605.5±112.7 mm2) was larger than that in the OI group (537.9±126.8 mm2). The cross-sectional area of the femoral posterolateral (PL) tunnel aperture in the TP group (369.9±88.3 mm2) did not differ significantly from that of the OI group (387.9±87.0 mm2). The grafts filled only 52.0% of the AM tunnel and 55.3% of the PL tunnel in the TP group, compared with 54.9% of the AM tunnel and 54.4% of the PL tunnel in the OI group, but there was no statistically significant difference (P>.05). The AM graft center was positioned 1.7±0.6 mm from the center of the tunnel aperture in the TP group and 1.6±0.5 mm in the OI group, and the PL graft center was positioned 1.4±0.4 mm from the center in the TP group and 1.3±0.4 mm in the OI group, with no significant intergroup differences (P=.406 and P=.629, respectively). In the OI group, the PL graft center was positioned more perpendicular to the Blumensaat line in relation to the tunnel aperture center (-10.8°±7.6°) compared with the TP group (-4.0°±11.8°) (P=.04).
The grafts did not fill the tunnel aperture area in either group, and the centers of the grafts differed slightly from the centers of the tunnel apertures. The finding of eccentric graft positioning in the tunnel with condensation in a particular direction in each technique might suggest the necessity of an underreamed femoral tunnel for graft. In addition, it may be useful to standardize the starting position of the femoral tunnel according to anatomic landmarks.
股骨隧道开口的椭圆度在不同的股骨隧道技术中有所不同,而椭圆度被认为在 ACL 重建后能更好地恢复天然前交叉韧带(ACL)的足迹。不同隧道技术中移植物填充股骨隧道开口的比例尚未得到评估。
本研究旨在评估和比较经胫骨(TP)技术和由外向内(OI)技术在 ACL 重建中股骨隧道开口内的移植物填充面积和移植物位置。
随机对照试验;证据等级,1 级。
总共 70 例患者被随机分为两组,分别采用 TP 技术(n = 35)或 OI 技术(n = 35)进行双束 ACL 重建。通过计算移植物横截面积与股骨隧道横截面积的比值来评估开口填充情况,并使用术后即刻磁共振成像评估隧道内移植物的中心位置。
TP 组股骨前内侧(AM)隧道开口的横截面积(605.5±112.7 mm²)大于 OI 组(537.9±126.8 mm²)。TP 组股骨后外侧(PL)隧道开口的横截面积(369.9±88.3 mm²)与 OI 组(387.9±87.0 mm²)相比无显著差异。TP 组中移植物仅填充了 AM 隧道的 52.0%和 PL 隧道的 55.3%,OI 组中移植物填充了 AM 隧道的 54.9%和 PL 隧道的 54.4%,但差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。TP 组 AM 移植物中心距离隧道开口中心 1.7±0.6 mm,OI 组为 1.6±0.5 mm;TP 组 PL 移植物中心距离隧道开口中心 1.4±0.4 mm,OI 组为 1.3±0.4 mm,组间差异无统计学意义(分别为 P = 0.406 和 P = 0.629)。在 OI 组中,PL 移植物中心相对于隧道开口中心更垂直于 Blumensaat 线(-10.8°±7.6°),而 TP 组为(-4.0°±11.8°)(P = 0.04)。
两组中移植物均未完全填充隧道开口区域,移植物中心与隧道开口中心略有不同。每种技术中移植物在隧道内偏心定位且在特定方向上有聚集的发现可能提示对股骨隧道进行欠扩髓以容纳移植物的必要性。此外,根据解剖标志标准化股骨隧道的起始位置可能是有用的。