Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 136, Issue 11, pp 1571–1580 | Cite as

Graft position in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial versus transtibial technique

  • Olcay GulerEmail author
  • Mahir Mahırogulları
  • Serhat Mutlu
  • Mehmet H. Cercı
  • Ali Seker
  • Selami Cakmak
Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

When treating anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, the position of the ACL graft plays a key role in regaining postoperative knee function and physiologic kinematics. In this study, we aimed to compare graft angle, graft position in tibial tunnel, and tibial and femoral tunnel positions in patients operated with anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) methods to those of contralateral healthy knees.

Materials and methods

Forty-eight patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with ipsilateral hamstring tendon autograft were included. Of these, 23 and 25 were treated by AM and TT techniques, respectively. MRI was performed at 18.4 and 19.7 months postoperatively in AM and TT groups. Graft angles, graft positions in the tibial tunnel and alignment of tibial and femoral tunnels were noted and compared in these two groups. The sagittal graft insertion tibia midpoint distance (SGON) has been used for evaluation of graft position in tunnel.

Results

Sagittal ACL graft angles in operated and healthy knees of AM patients were 57.78° and 46.80° (p < 0.01). With respect to TT patients, ACL graft angle was 58.87° and 70.04° on sagittal and frontal planes in operated knees versus 47.38° and 61.82° in healthy knees (p < 0.001). ACL graft angle was significantly different between the groups on both sagittal and frontal planes (p < 0.001). Sagittal graft insertion tibia midpoint distance ratio was 0.51 and 0.48 % in the operated and healthy knees of AM group (p < 0.001) and 0.51 and 0.48 % in TT group (p < 0.001). Sagittal tibial tunnel midpoint distance ratio did not differ from sagittal graft insertion tibia midpoint distance of healthy knees in either group. Femoral tunnel clock position was better in AM [right knee 10:19 o’clock-face position (310° ± 4°); left knee 1:40 (50° ± 3°)] compared with TT group [right knee 10:48 (324° ± 5°); left knee 1:04 (32° ± 4°)]. With respect to the sagittal plane, the anterior–posterior position of femoral tunnel was better in AM patients. Lysholm scores and range of motion of operated knees in the AM and TT groups showed no significant difference (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Precise reconstruction on sagittal plane cannot be obtained with either AM or TT technique. However, AM technique is superior to TT technique in terms of anatomical graft positioning. Posterior-placed grafts in tibial tunnel prevent ACL reconstruction, although tibial tunnel is drilled on sagittal plane.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Anteromedial technique Lysholm scoring Single-bundle ACL reconstruction Tibial tunnel 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Pascual-Garrido C, Swanson BL, Swanson KE (2013) Transtibial versus low anteromedial portal drilling for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a radiographic study of femoral tunnel position. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:846–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fu FH, Karlsson J (2010) A long journey to be anatomic. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1151–1153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hantes ME, Zachos VC, Liantsis A, Venouziou A, Karantanas AH, Malizos KN (2009) Differences in graft orientation using the transtibial and anteromedial portal technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:880–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bedi A, Maak T, Musahl V, Citak M, O’Loughlin PF, Choi D, Pearle AD (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 39:366–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Driscoll MD, Isabell GP Jr, Conditt MA, Ismaily SK, Jupiter DC, Noble PC, Lowe WR (2012) Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel locations in anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 28:1481–1489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 17:220–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rayan F, Nanjayan SK, Quah C, Ramoutar D, Konan S, Haddad FS (2015) Review of evolution of tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. World J Orthop 6:252–262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alentorn-Geli E, Lajara F, Samitier G, Cugat R (2010) The transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique in the arthroscopic bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1013–1037CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bedi A, Raphael B, Maderazo A, Pavlov H, Williams RJ III (2010) Transtibial versus anteromedial portal drilling for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study of femoral tunnel length and obliquity. Arthroscopy 26:342–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kopf S, Forsythe B, Wong AK, Tashman S, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH (2012) Transtibial ACL reconstruction technique fails to position drill tunnels anatomically in vivo 3D CT study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2200–2207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 15:1293–1300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho Y, Cho J, Kim D (2012) Normal sagittal of the anterior cruciate ligament can be reproduced using accessory anteromedial portal technique: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:1011–1019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferretti M, Doca D, Ingham SM, Cohen M, Fu FH (2012) Bony and soft tissue landmarks of the ACL tibial insertion site: an anatomical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:62–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Odensten M, Gillquist J (1985) Functional anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament and a rationale for reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:257–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rue JP, Lewis PB, Parameswaran AD, Bach BR (2008) Single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: technique overview and comprehensive review of results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(Suppl 4):67–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernard M, Hertel P (1996) Intraoperative and postoperative insertion control of anterior cruciate ligament-plasty. A radiologic measuring method (quadrant method). Unfallchirurg 99:332–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sampson MJ, Jackson MP, Moran CJ, Shine S, Moran R, Eustace SJ (2008) Three Tesla MRI for the diagnosis of meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament pathology: a comparison to arthroscopic findings. Clin Radiol 63:1106–1111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaya A, Karadag D, Guclu B, Ucar F, Benli IT (2010) Evaluation of the two bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament with 1.5 tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 44:54–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bowers AL, Bedi A, Lipman JD, Potter HG, Rodeo SA, Pearle AD, Warren RF, Altchek DW (2011) Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament tunnel position and graft obliquity with transtibial and anteromedial portal femoral tunnel reaming techniques using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopy 27:1511–1522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marchant BG, Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD, Fleckenstein C (2010) Prevalence of nonanatomical graft placement in a series of failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 38:1987–1996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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(7):1412–1417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sadoghi P, Kropfl A, Jansson V, Muller PE, Pietschmann MF, Fischmeister MF (2011) Impact of tibial and femoral tunnel position on clinical results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 27:355–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sohn OJ, Lee DC, Park KH, Ahn HS (2014) Comparison of the modified transtibial technique, anteromedial portal technique and outside-in technique in ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res 26:241–248CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bowers AL, Bedi A, Lipman JD, Potter HG, Rodeo SA, Pearle AD, Warren RF, Altchek DW (2011) Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament tunnel position and graft obliquity with transtibial and anteromedial portal femoral tunnel reaming techniques using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopy 27:1511–1522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolf BR, Ramme AJ, Britton CL, Amendola A, MOON Knee Group (2014) Anterior cruciate ligament tunnel placement. J Knee Surg 27:309–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keller TC, Tompkins M, Economopoulos K, Milewski MD, Gaskin C, Brockmeier S, Hart J, Miller MD (2014) Tibial tunnel placement accuracy during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: independent femoral versus transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques. Arthroscopy 30:1116–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noh JH, Roh YH, Yang BG, Yi SR, Lee SY (2013) Femoral tunnel position on conventional magnetic resonance imaging after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young men: transtibial technique versus anteromedial portal technique. Arthroscopy 29:882–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yau WP, Fok AW, Yee DK (2013) Tunnel positions in trans portal versus transtibial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a case-control magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy 29:1047–1052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee YS, Lee BK, Moon do H, Park HG, Kim WS, Moon CW (2013) Comparison of tunnel locations of double bundle ACL reconstruction using the conventional transtibial technique with anatomic tunnel locations using a 3D CT model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:1121–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howell SM, Hull ML (2009) Checkpoints for judging tunnel and anterior cruciate ligament graft placement. J Knee Surg 22:161–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kawaguchi Y, Kondo E, Takeda R, Akita K, Yasuda K, Amis AA (2015) The role of fibers in the femoral attachment of the anterior cruciate ligament in resisting tibial displacement. Arthroscopy 31:435–444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Azboy I, Demirtaş A, Gem M, Kıran S, Alemdar C, Bulut M (2014) A comparison of the anteromedial and transtibial drilling technique in ACL reconstruction after a short-term follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:963–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tomihara T, Hashimoto Y, Taniuchi M, Shimada N (2015) Relationship between femoral tunnel location and graft bending angle in outside-in and transportal technique for ACL double bundle reconstruction in 3D-CT study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:839–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Celiktas M, Kose O, Sarpel Y, Gulsen M (2015) Can we use intraoperative femoral tunnel length measurement as a clue for proper femoral tunnel placement on coronal plane during ACL reconstruction? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:523–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee YS, Lee BK, Moon do H, Park HG, Kim WS, Moon CW (2013) Comparison of tunnel locations of double bundle ACL reconstruction using the conventional transtibial technique with anatomic tunnel locations using a 3D CT model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:1121–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentMedipol University, Medical FacultyIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentKanuni Sultan Suleyman Training HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentNisa HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentGulhane Military Medical Academy Haydarpasa Training HospitalIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations