Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 2474–2480 | Cite as

Posterolateral portal tibial tunnel drilling for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: technique and evaluation of safety and tunnel position

  • Eduard Alentorn-Geli
  • Joseph J. Stuart
  • J. H. James Choi
  • Alison P. Toth
  • Claude T. MoormanIII
  • Dean C. Taylor
Knee
  • 380 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the safety for neurovascular structures and accuracy for tunnel placement of the posterolateral portal tibial tunnel drilling technique in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.

Methods

Fifteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees were used. The tibial tunnel for the PCL was created using a flexible reamer from the posterolateral portal. Then, the flexible pin was left in place, and the distance from the posterolateral portal, the flexible pin, and the tibial tunnel to the peroneal nerve and popliteal artery was measured. Additionally, the distance between the tibial tunnel and several landmarks related to the PCL footprint was measured, along with the distance from the exit point of the flexible pin to the superficial medial collateral ligament and gracilis tendon.

Results

The peroneal nerve and the popliteal neurovascular bundle were not damaged in any of the specimens. The median (range) distance in mm from the peroneal nerve and popliteal artery to the posterolateral portal and flexible pin was: 52 (40–80) and 50 (40–61), and 35 (26–51) and 22 (16–32), respectively. The median (range) distance from the tibial tunnel to the popliteal artery was 21 mm (15–38). The tibial tunnel was located at a median (range) distance in mm of 3 (2–6), 6 (3–12), 5 (2–7), 4 (1–8), 9 (3–10), 10 (4–19), and 19 (6–24) to the champagne-glass drop-off, lateral cartilage point, shiny white fibre point, medial groove, medial meniscus posterior root, lateral meniscus posterior root, and posterior aspect of the anterior cruciate ligament, respectively.

Conclusions

The posterolateral portal tibial tunnel technique is safe relative to neurovascular structures and creates an anatomically appropriate tibial tunnel location. The clinical relevance of study is that this technique may be safely and accurately used in PCL reconstruction to decrease the risk of neurovascular damage (avoid use of a posteriorly directed pin), avoid the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy, and avoid the sharp turn during graft passage.

Keywords

Posterior cruciate ligament Tibial drilling Posterolateral portal Safety 

Notes

Acknowledgments

No IRB is required for this study. IRB exemption was obtained for the present cadaver study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the present investigation.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn JH, Lee SH, Jung HJ, Koo KH, Kim SH (2011) The relationship of neural structures to arthroscopic posterior portals according to knee positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:646–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alentorn-Geli E, Stuart JJ, Choi JHJ, Toth AP, Moorman CT 3rd, Taylor DC (2015) Inside-out antegrade tibial tunnel drilling through the posterolateral portal using a flexible reamer in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2015.05.016 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson CJ, Ziegler CG, Wijdicks CA, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF (2012) Arthroscopically pertinent anatomy of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1936–1945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergfeld JA, McAllister DR, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE (2001) A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. Am J Sports Med 29:129–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell RB, Jordan SS, Sekiya JK (2007) Arthroscopic tibial inlay for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 23(1356):e1351–e1354Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greiner P, Magnussen RA, Lustig S, Demey G, Neyret P, Servien E (2011) Computed tomography evaluation of the femoral and tibial attachments of the posterior cruciate ligament in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1876–1883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammoud S, Reinhardt KR, Marx RG (2010) Outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament treatment: a review of the evidence. Sports Med Arthrosc 18:280–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li B, Wang JS, He M, Wang GB, Shen P, Bai LH (2014) Comparison of hamstring tendon autograft and tibialis anterior allograft in arthroscopic transtibial single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3077–3084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Makridis KG, Wajsfisz A, Agrawal N, Basdekis G, Djian P (2013) Neurovascular anatomic relationships to arthroscopic posterior and transseptal portals in different knee positions. Am J Sports Med 41:1559–1564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    May JH, Gillette BP, Morgan JA, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, Levy BA (2010) Transtibial versus inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based systematic review. J Knee Surg 23:73–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moorman CT 3rd, Murphy Zane MS, Bansai S, Cina SJ, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF, Kaseta MK (2008) Tibial insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament: a sagittal plane analysis using gross, histologic, and radiographic methods. Arthroscopy 24:269–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pace JL, Wahl CJ (2010) Arthroscopy of the posterior knee compartments: neurovascular anatomic relationships during arthroscopic transverse capsulotomy. Arthroscopy 26:637–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Panchal HB, Sekiya JK (2011) Open tibial inlay versus arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 27:1289–1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramos LA, de Carvalho RT, Cohen M, Abdalla RJ (2008) Anatomic relation between the posterior cruciate ligament and the joint capsule. Arthroscopy 24:1367–1372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salata MJ, Sekiya JK (2011) Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction: a surgical technique that may influence rehabilitation. Sports Health 3:52–58CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zawodny SR, Miller MD (2010) Complications of posterior cruciate ligament surgery. Sports Med Arthrosc 18:269–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduard Alentorn-Geli
    • 1
  • Joseph J. Stuart
    • 1
  • J. H. James Choi
    • 1
  • Alison P. Toth
    • 1
  • Claude T. MoormanIII
    • 1
  • Dean C. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Duke Sports Sciences Institute, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations