Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 181–187 | Cite as

Far anteromedial portal technique for posterolateral femoral tunnel drilling in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study

  • Atsuo NakamaeEmail author
  • Mitsuo Ochi
  • Nobuo Adachi
  • Masataka Deie
  • Tomoyuki Nakasa
  • Goki Kamei
  • Atsushi Okuhara
  • Takuya Niimoto
  • Shingo Ohkawa
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

To identify the relationship between knee flexion angle and femoral tunnel length, as well as the exit points of guidewires, when using a far anteromedial portal technique for posterolateral femoral tunnel drilling in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Methods

Using the far anteromedial portal technique in 8 cadaveric knees, femoral tunnel drilling for the posterolateral bundle was performed at 3 knee flexion angles: 90°, 110° and 130°. We measured the femoral tunnel length and the distances from each guidewire to the closest relevant structures.

Results

The mean tunnel length at 90° knee flexion (25.8 ± 1.8 mm) was significantly shorter than the length at 110° and 130° knee flexion (32.1 ± 2.6 and 33.1 ± 2.5 mm, respectively). The average distance between the exit point of the guidewire and the posterior articular cartilage of the lateral femoral condyle was the shortest at 90° knee flexion (3.3 ± 2.2 mm). The distance between the guidewire and the centre of the origin of the lateral collateral ligament was the shortest at 130° knee flexion (8.0 ± 1.8 mm). The guidewires penetrated the origin of the lateral gastrocnemius tendon in 2 cases at 110° knee flexion and in 1 case each at 90° and 130° knee flexion.

Conclusions

When using the far anteromedial portal technique, more than 110° knee flexion is desirable to achieve ideal femoral tunnel length and avoid articular cartilage injury. In addition, the risk of damage to the origin of the lateral collateral ligament increases when the knee flexion angle increases to 130°. A knee flexion angle between 110° and 120° was recommended when using the far anteromedial portal technique.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament Knee Far anteromedial portal technique Femoral tunnel length Double-bundle ACL reconstruction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Professor Hirohiko Aoyama, Ph.D., from the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, for allowing us to perform this cadaveric study in his department and for providing us with the facilities to conduct the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Araujo PH, van Eck CF, Macalena JA, Fu FH (2011) Advances in the three-portal technique for anatomical single- or double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1239–1242PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basdekis G, Abisafi C, Christel P (2009) Effect of knee flexion angle on length and orientation of posterolateral femoral tunnel drilled through anteromedial portal during anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 25:1108–1114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bedi A, Raphael B, Maderazo A, Pavlov H, Williams RJ 3rd (2010) Transtibial versus anteromedial portal drilling for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study of femoral tunnel length and obliquity. Arthroscopy 26:342–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Branch TP, Siebold R, Freedberg HI, Jacobs CA (2011) Double-bundle ACL reconstruction demonstrated superior clinical stability to single-bundle ACL reconstruction: a matched-pairs analysis of instrumented tests of tibial anterior translation and internal rotation laxity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:432–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 17:220–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farrow LD, Parker RD (2010) The relationship of lateral anatomic structures to exiting guide pins during femoral tunnel preparation utilizing an accessory medial portal. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:747–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gabriel MT, Wong EK, Woo SL, Yagi M, Debski RE (2004) Distribution of in situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament in response to rotatory loads. J Orthop Res 22:85–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall MP, Ryzewicz M, Walsh PJ, Sherman OH (2009) Risk of iatrogenic injury to the peroneal nerve during posterolateral femoral tunnel placement in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 37:109–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Järvelä T (2007) Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomize clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:500–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA (2010) Biomechanical comparisons of knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2 clinically available transtibial procedures: anatomic double bundle versus single bundle. Am J Sports Med 38:1349–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lubowitz JH (2009) Anteromedial portal technique for the anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket: pitfalls and solutions. Arthroscopy 25:95–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lubowitz JH, Konicek J (2010) Anterior cruciate ligament femoral tunnel length: cadaveric analysis comparing anteromedial portal versus outside-in technique. Arthroscopy 26:1357–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mae T, Shino K, Miyama T, Shinjo H, Ochi T, Yoshikawa H, Fujie H (2001) Single versus 2-femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique: biomechanical analysis using a robotic simulator. Arthroscopy 17:708–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller CD, Gerdeman AC, Hart JM, Bennett CG, Golish SR, Gaskin C, Miller MD (2011) A comparison of 2 drilling techniques on the femoral tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 27:372–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Musahl V, Voos JE, O’Loughlin PF, Choi D, Stueber V, Kendoff D, Pearle AD (2010) Comparing stability of different single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: a cadaveric study using navigation. Arthroscopy 26:S41–S48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 28:658–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakamura M, Deie M, Shibuya H, Nakamae A, Adachi N, Aoyama H, Ochi M (2009) Potential risks of femoral tunnel drilling through the far anteromedial portal: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 25:481–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neven E, D’Hooghe P, Bellemans J (2008) Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study on the posterolateral tunnel position and safety of the lateral structures. Arthroscopy 24:436–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nishimoto K, Kuroda R, Mizuno K, Hoshino Y, Nagamune K, Kubo S, Yagi M, Yamaguchi M, Yoshiya S, Kurosaka M (2009) Analysis of the graft bending angle at the femoral tunnel aperture in anatomic double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of the transtibial and the far anteromedial portal technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:270–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Otani M, Nozaki M, Kobayashi M, Goto H, Tawada K, Waguri-Nagaya Y, Okamoto H, Iguchi H, Watanabe N, Otsuka T (2012) Comparative risk of common peroneal nerve injury in far anteromedial portal drilling and transtibial drilling in anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:838–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Palmar I (1938) On the injuries to the ligaments of the knee joint. Acta Chir Scand 81(suppl 53):3–282Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pujol N, Fong O, Karoubi M, Beaufils P, Boisrenoult P (2010) Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction using a bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: a technical note. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:43–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shino K, Horibe S, Hamada M, Nakamura N, Nakata K, Toritsuka Y, Mae T (2002) Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Tech Knee Surg 1:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siebold R, Benetos IS, Sartory N, He Z, Hariri N, Pässler HH (2010) How to avoid the risk of intraoperative cartilage damage in anatomic four tunnel double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:64–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silver AG, Kaar SG, Grisell MK, Reagan JM, Farrow LD (2010) Comparison between rigid and flexible systems for drilling the femoral tunnel through an anteromedial portal in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 26:790–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taketomi S, Nakagawa T, Takeda H, Nakajima K, Nakayama S, Fukai A, Hirota J, Kachi Y, Kawano H, Miura T, Fukui N, Nakamura K (2011) Anatomical placement of double femoral tunnels in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial tunnel first or posterolateral tunnel first? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:424–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang JH, Kim JG, Lee do K, Lim HC, Ahn JH (2012) Comparison of femoral graft bending angle and tunnel length between transtibial technique and transportal technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1584–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zantop T, Haase AK, Fu FH, Petersen W (2008) Potential risk of cartilage damage in double bundle ACL reconstruction: impact of knee flexion angle and portal location on the femoral PL bundle tunnel. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:509–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zantop T, Kubo S, Petersen W, Musahl V, Fu FH (2007) Current techniques in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 23:938–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 15:87–96PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atsuo Nakamae
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mitsuo Ochi
    • 1
  • Nobuo Adachi
    • 1
  • Masataka Deie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomoyuki Nakasa
    • 1
  • Goki Kamei
    • 1
  • Atsushi Okuhara
    • 1
  • Takuya Niimoto
    • 1
  • Shingo Ohkawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Integrated Health Sciences, Institute of Biomedical and Health SciencesHiroshima UniversityMinami-kuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Sciences, Graduate School of Health SciencesHiroshima UniversityMinami-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations