Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomic femoral tunnel placement is difficult by the transtibial technique: comparison of three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the position and direction of femoral and tibial tunnels for both the anteromedial bundle (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB) among three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques, transtibial (TT), transportal (TP), and outside-in (OI) techniques, in anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction to clarify advantages and disadvantages of each technique.

Methods

One-hundred and thirty-nine patients underwent primary ACL reconstruction with an autologous semitendinosus tendon in our institution between 2014 and 2016. Thirteen patients were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. Of the 126 patients, 98 patients agreed to be included in this study. Patients were then randomized into three groups according to the femoral tunnel drilling technique; the TT, TP, and OI groups. Femoral and tibial tunnel angles and positions were measured using three-dimensional computed tomography.

Results

Of patients who agreed to be included in this study, eight patients (seven in TT and one in OI) were excluded since the femoral tunnel could not be created at the intended position. Eighty-six patients (29 in TT, 29 in TP, and 28 in OI) were included for the analyses. Tunnel angles, as well as tunnel lengths, had significant differences among different techniques depending on each technique’s characteristics. In terms of tunnel position, femoral tunnel positions of both the AMB and PLB in the TT group were significantly higher than those in the TP group (AMB: p = 0.003, PLB: p = 0.001), and the PLB tunnel position in the TP group had significantly smaller vaciance than that in the TT group (p = 0.004) and OI group (0.002).

Conclusions

The femoral tunnel positions created by the TT technique were significantly higher, with larger variance, than the TP technique in double-bundle ACL reconstruction, although the positions seemed to be within anatomical footprint. In addition, there were several cases in which femoral tunnels could not be created at the intended position by the TT technique.

Level of evidence

I

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abebe ES, Kim JP, Utturkar GM et al (2011) The effect of femoral tunnel placement on ACL graft orientation and length during in vivo knee flexion. J Biomech 44:1914–1920

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahn JH, Lee SH, Yoo JC, Ha HC (2007) Measurement of the graft angles for the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transtibial technique using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging in comparative study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1293–1300

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold MP, Kooloos J, van Kampen A (2001) Single-incision technique misses the anatomical femoral anterior cruciate ligament insertion: a cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:194–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bedi A, Maak T, Musahl V et al (2011) Effect of tibial tunnel position on stability of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: is the tibial tunnel position most important? Am J Sports Med 39:366–373

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bedi A, Musahl V, Steuber V et al (2011) Transtibial versus anteromedial portal reaming in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an anatomic and biomechanical evaluation of surgical technique. Arthroscopy 27:380–390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernard M, Hertel P, Hornung H, Cierpinski T (1997) Femoral insertion of the ACL. Radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg 10:14–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cha PS, Brucker PU, West RV et al (2005) Arthroscopic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an anatomic approach. Arthroscopy 21:1275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang MJ, Chang CB, Won HH, Je MS, Kim TK (2013) Anteromedial portal versus outside-in technique for creating femoral tunnels in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 29:1533–1539

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chiba D, Tsuda E, Tsukada H, Iio K, Ishibashi Y (2017) Tunnel malpositions in anterior cruciate ligament risk cartilaginous changes and bucket-handle meniscal tear: arthroscopic survey in both primary and revision surgery. J Orthop Sci 22:892–897

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Conner CS, Morris RP, Vallurupalli S, Buford WL Jr, Ivey FM (2008) Tensioning of anterior cruciate ligament hamstring grafts: comparing equal tension versus equal stress. Arthroscopy 24:1323–1329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dargel J, Schmidt-Wiethoff R, Fischer S, Mader K, Koebke J, Schneider T (2009) Femoral bone tunnel placement using the transtibial tunnel or the anteromedial portal in ACL reconstruction: a radiographic evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:220–227

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Farrow LD, Liu RW (2010) Lateral anatomic structures at risk during transepiphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 23:209–213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Forsythe B, Kopf S, Wong AK et al (2010) The location of femoral and tibial tunnels in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction analyzed by three-dimensional computed tomography models. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:1418–1426

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gadikota HR, Sim JA, Hosseini A, Gill TJ, Li G (2012) The relationship between femoral tunnels created by the transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in techniques and the anterior cruciate ligament footprint. Am J Sports Med 40:882–888

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Geng Y, Gai P (2018) Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:454

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Giron F, Cuomo P, Aglietti P, Bull AM, Amis AA (2006) Femoral attachment of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:250–256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guglielmetti LGB, Shimba LG, do Santos LC et al (2017) The influence of femoral tunnel length on graft rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Traumatol 18:243–250

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Harner CD, Honkamp NJ, Ranawat AS (2008) Anteromedial portal technique for creating the anterior cruciate ligament femoral tunnel. Arthroscopy 24:113–115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heming JF, Rand J, Steiner ME (2007) Anatomical limitations of transtibial drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 35:1708–1715

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hosseini A, Lodhia P, Van de Velde SK et al (2012) Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis. Int Orthop 36:845–852

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Inderhaug E, Raknes S, Ostvold T, Solheim E, Strand T (2017) Increased revision rate with posterior tibial tunnel placement after using the 70-degree tibial guide in ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:152–158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Inoue M, Tokuyasu S, Kuwahara S et al (2010) Tunnel location in transparent 3-dimensional CT in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the trans-tibial tunnel technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1176–1183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kambara S, Nakayama H, Yamaguchi M et al (2017) Comparison of transportal and outside-in techniques for posterolateral femoral tunnel drilling in double-bundle ACL reconstruction -three-dimensional CT analysis of bone tunnel geometry. J Orthop Sci 22:481–487

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16:494–502

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim JG, Chang MH, Lim HC, Bae JH, Ahn JH, Wang JH (2013) Computed tomography analysis of the femoral tunnel position and aperture shape of transportal and outside-in ACL reconstruction: do different anatomic reconstruction techniques create similar femoral tunnels? Am J Sports Med 41:2512–2520

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim JG, Wang JH, Lim HC, Ahn JH (2012) Femoral graft bending angle and femoral tunnel geometry of transportal and outside-in techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vivo 3-dimensional computed tomography analysis. Arthroscopy 28:1682–1694

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim KI, Lee SH, Bae C, Bae SH (2017) Three-dimensional reconstruction computed tomography evaluation of the tunnel location and angle in anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of the anteromedial portal and outside-in techniques. Knee Surg Relat Res 29:11–18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Koga H, Muneta T, Yagishita K et al (2015) Effect of initial graft tension on knee stability and graft tension pattern in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 31:1756–1763

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Koga H, Muneta T, Yagishita K et al (2015) Evaluation of a behind-remnant approach for femoral tunnel creation in remnant-preserving double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—comparison with a standard approach. Knee 22:249–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kopf S, Forsythe B, Wong AK et al (2010) Nonanatomic tunnel position in traditional transtibial single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:1427–1431

    Google Scholar 

  31. Larson AI, Bullock DP, Pevny T (2012) Comparison of 4 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 28:972–979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lubowitz JH (2009) Anteromedial portal technique for the anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket: pitfalls and solutions. Arthroscopy 25:95–101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lubowitz JH, Akhavan S, Waterman BR, Aalami-Harandi A, Konicek J (2013) Technique for creating the anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket: optimizing femoral footprint anatomic restoration using outside-in drilling. Arthroscopy 29:522–528

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Markolf KL, Hame S, Hunter DM et al (2002) Effects of femoral tunnel placement on knee laxity and forces in an anterior cruciate ligament graft. J Orthop Res 20:1016–1024

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Muneta T, Koga H, Nakamura T, Horie M, Watanabe T, Sekiya I (2016) Behind-remnant arthroscopic observation and scoring of femoral attachment of injured anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:2906–2914

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Muneta T, Koga H, Nakamura T et al (2015) A new behind-remnant approach for remnant-preserving double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with a standard approach. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3743–3749

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Muneta T, Yamamoto H, Sakai H, Ishibashi T, Furuya K (1993) Relationship between changes in length and force in in vitro reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 21:299–304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nakamae A, Ochi M, Adachi N, Deie M, Nakasa T (2012) Clinical comparisons between the transtibial technique and the far anteromedial portal technique for posterolateral femoral tunnel drilling in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 28:658–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nakamura T, Koga H, Otabe K et al (2019) Comparison of three approaches for femoral tunnel during double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a case controlled study. J Orthop Sci 24:147–152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Park JS, Park JH, Wang JH et al (2015) Comparison of femoral tunnel geometry, using in vivo 3-dimensional computed tomography, during transportal and outside-in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. Arthroscopy 31:83–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Robert HE, Bouguennec N, Vogeli D, Berton E, Bowen M (2013) Coverage of the anterior cruciate ligament femoral footprint using 3 different approaches in single-bundle reconstruction: a cadaveric study analyzed by 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Sports Med 41:2375–2383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Robin BN, Jani SS, Marvil SC, Reid JB, Schillhammer CK, Lubowitz JH (2015) Advantages and disadvantages of transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in femoral tunnel drilling in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 31:1412–1417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Saito K, Hatayama K, Terauchi M, Hagiwara K, Higuchi H, Takagishi K (2015) Clinical outcomes after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of extreme knee hyperextension and normal to mild knee hyperextension. Arthroscopy 31:1310–1317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Siebold R, Axe J, Irrgang JJ, Li K, Tashman S, Fu FH (2010) A computerized analysis of femoral condyle radii in ACL intact and contralateral ACL reconstructed knees using 3D CT. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:26–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Takeda Y, Iwame T, Takasago T et al (2013) Comparison of tunnel orientation between transtibial and anteromedial portal techniques for anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Arthroscopy 29:195–204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Volpi P, Denti M (2008) Double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using the transtibial technique. Arthroscopy 24:1190–1194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Xu Y, Ao Y, Wang J, Yu J, Cui G (2011) Relation of tunnel enlargement and tunnel placement after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 27:923–932

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H (2006) Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy 22:240–251

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zantop T, Herbort M, Raschke MJ, Fu FH, Petersen W (2007) The role of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament in anterior tibial translation and internal rotation. Am J Sports Med 35:223–227

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zantop T, Wellmann M, Fu FH, Petersen W (2008) Tunnel positioning of anteromedial and posterolateral bundles in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anatomic and radiographic findings. Am J Sports Med 36:65–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zavras TD, Race A, Amis AA (2005) The effect of femoral attachment location on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: graft tension patterns and restoration of normal anterior-posterior laxity patterns. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:92–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zelle BA, Vidal AF, Brucker PU, Fu FH (2007) Double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: anatomic and biomechanical rationale. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:87–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Atsushi Okawa, MD, PhD for continuous support, Miyoko Ojima for management of our department and Ronald G. Berisle for English correction.

Funding

No external source of funding was used.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Joint Surgery and Sports Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan

    Kaori Nakamura, Tomomasa Nakamura, Masafumi Horie, Hiroki Katagiri, Yusuke Nakagawa, Masaki Amemiya, Takeshi Muneta & Hideyuki Koga

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital of Medicine, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan

    Hiroki Katagiri, Koji Otabe, Yusuke Nakagawa, Ichiro Sekiya & Hideyuki Koga

Authors
  1. Kaori Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomomasa Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masafumi Horie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroki Katagiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Koji Otabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yusuke Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Masaki Amemiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ichiro Sekiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takeshi Muneta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hideyuki Koga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideyuki Koga.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Tokyo Medical and Dental University institutional review board (Research protocol identification number: 1842) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakamura, K., Nakamura, T., Horie, M. et al. Anatomic femoral tunnel placement is difficult by the transtibial technique: comparison of three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28, 584–593 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05740-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05740-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation