From the OrthoCarolina-Sports Medicine Center, Charlotte, NC (Saltzman, Hong, Meade, Fleischli, and Piasecki), the Atrium Health-Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, NC (Saltzman, Hong, Meade, Fleischli, and Piasecki), the Atrium Health-Orthopaedic Engineering Research Laboratory, Charlotte, NC (Wang and Habet), and the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY (Trofa).
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022 Sep 15;30(18):e1195-e1206. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00883.
The purpose of this finite element analysis was to compare femoral tunnel length; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft bending angle; and peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area created by the transtibial, anteromedial portal (AMP), and hybrid transtibial techniques.
Finite element analysis modeling was used to examine anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction models based on transtibial, AMP, and hybrid transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques. An evaluation of femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area was done in comparison of these techniques.
The femoral tunnel created with the hybrid transtibial technique was 45.3 mm, which was 13.3% longer than that achieved with the AMP technique but 15.2% shorter than that with the transtibial technique. The femoral graft bending angle with the hybrid transtibial technique (105°) was less acute than that with the AMP technique (102°), but more acute than that with the transtibial technique (109°). At 11° knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial technique had 22% less femoral contact force, 21% less tibial contact force, 21% less graft tension than the AMP technique. Yet, the hybrid transtibial technique had 41% greater femoral contact force, 39% greater tibial contact force, 33% greater graft tension, and 6% greater graft von Mises stress than the transtibial technique. A similar trend was found for the anterior knee drawer test. At both 6-mm anterior tibial displacement and 11° knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial and AMP techniques had at least 51% more femoral contact area than the transtibial technique.
This finite element analysis highlights that the hybrid transtibial technique is a true hybrid between the AMP and transtibial techniques for femoral tunnel drilling regarding femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, and peak graft stress.
本有限元分析旨在比较经胫骨、前内侧入路(AMP)和混合经胫骨技术的股骨隧道长度;前交叉韧带重建移植物弯曲角度;以及峰值移植物应力、接触力和接触面积。
使用有限元分析模型来检查基于经胫骨、AMP 和混合经胫骨股骨隧道钻孔技术的前交叉韧带重建模型。比较这些技术,评估股骨隧道长度、移植物弯曲角度、峰值移植物应力、接触力和接触面积。
混合经胫骨技术所创建的股骨隧道长 45.3mm,比 AMP 技术长 13.3%,但比经胫骨技术短 15.2%。混合经胫骨技术的股骨移植物弯曲角度(105°)比 AMP 技术(102°)小,但比经胫骨技术(109°)大。在 11°膝关节屈曲时,混合经胫骨技术的股骨接触力比 AMP 技术小 22%,胫骨接触力小 21%,移植物张力小 21%。然而,混合经胫骨技术的股骨接触力比经胫骨技术大 41%,胫骨接触力大 39%,移植物张力大 33%,移植物 von Mises 应力大 6%。在前膝抽屉试验中也发现了类似的趋势。在 6mm 胫骨前移位和 11°膝关节屈曲时,混合经胫骨和 AMP 技术的股骨接触面积至少比经胫骨技术大 51%。
本有限元分析强调,混合经胫骨技术是 AMP 和经胫骨技术在股骨隧道钻孔方面的真正混合,涉及股骨隧道长度、移植物弯曲角度和峰值移植物应力。