Liu Chunhui, Wang Yingpeng, Li Zhongli, Li Ji, Zhang Hao, Fu Yangmu, Zhang Kuan
Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital of PLA, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100853, China.
School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Oct 4;13(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0956-1.
During 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.
Seven 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.
Compared 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).
The 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.
SB 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.
在单束前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)过程中,股骨隧道位置在恢复完整膝关节机制方面起着重要作用,而隧道位置不当被认为是膝关节不稳定的最常见原因。本研究的目的是客观评估采用经胫骨(TT)或前内侧(AM)入路技术钻出股骨隧道的单束(SB)前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)术后胫股接触面积和应力。
七具新鲜人体尸体膝关节按随机顺序采用TT或AM入路技术进行ACLR。这些标本被重复用于ACLR(TT和AM)。通过插入关节间隙的电子应力敏感膜测量胫股接触面积和应力。使用生物力学测试机在膝关节屈曲0°、10°、20°和30°时,对膝关节施加1000 N的股骨轴向压缩载荷。比较三种情况:(1)完整前交叉韧带,(2)采用TT法进行ACLR,(3)采用AM入路法进行ACLR。
与AM入路ACLR重建的膝关节相比,TT ACLR重建的膝关节在膝关节屈曲20°时,内侧间室的胫股接触面积显著减小(P = 0.047)。与完整组相比,TT ACLR组在屈曲20°和30°时内侧间室的平均应力更高(分别为P = 0.001,P = 0.003),而AM入路ACLR组在屈曲30°时无显著差异(P = 0.073)。TT ACLR组在屈曲20°时内侧间室的平均最大应力也更高(P = 0.047),而AM入路ACLR组在该角度无显著差异(P = 0.319)。
与完整膝关节相比,重建膝关节中胫股关节接触面积和应力的改变可能是由于膝关节运动过程中胫股关节不匹配所致。
与完整膝关节相比,采用AM入路法和TT法进行SB ACLR均会改变胫股接触面积和应力。与TT技术相比,AM入路技术进行ACLR在低屈曲角度时更能接近恢复完整的胫股接触面积和应力。