J Knee Surg 2020; 33(09): 938-946
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710363
Original Article

Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

1   Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey
,
Hakan Çiçek
1   Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey
,
Ahmet Yılmaz
1   Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey
,
Metin Özalay
2   Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Baskent University Hospital, Adana, Turkey
,
Gökhan Söker
3   Department of Radiology, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey
,
Berrin Leblebici
4   Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baskent University Hospital, Adana, Turkey
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

This study compared the clinical and radiological findings of nonanatomic transtibial (TT) technique with intraspongious fixation and anatomical anteromedial portal (AMP) technique with extracortical button implant in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. A total of 54 patients with isolated ACL rupture were included in this prospective study. The patients who had the intraspongious fixation by nonanatomical TT technique were allocated to Group 1 (n = 27). The patients with extracortical fixation by anatomical AMP technique were placed in Group 2 (n = 27). The clinical scores of the patients were evaluated with the International Knee Documentation Committee Evaluation Form, Tegner activity score, and Lysholm II Functional Scoring. The tibial and femoral tunnels were evaluated with three-dimensional computed tomography. The kinematic examinations were performed with a Biodex System 3 Pro isokinetic dynamometer. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic data (p > 0.05). The postoperative clinical scores improved significantly in both the groups compared with the preoperative levels (p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference in the postoperative clinical scores between the groups (p > 0.05). In the extension and flexion of 60 to 180 degrees/s, the peak torque and the peak torque/body weight values of the repaired knee to intact knee ratios showed significant differences in favor of Group 2 (p = 0.001). In both the groups, no significant difference was found between the mean extent of the tunnel enlargement (p > 0.05). The mean tunnel height was significantly greater in Group 1 (45% ± 9.86 vs. 34.11% ± 10.0%) (p = 0.001). When the localization of the tunnel enlargements (proximal-middle-distal) was examined, a significant difference was found between the groups (p = 0.001). Although the AMP technique, which is a more anatomic reconstruction, had an advantage with regard to tunnel enlargement and the isokinetic muscle studies, there was no difference between the two techniques in terms of the clinical results.



Publication History

Received: 20 September 2019

Accepted: 20 March 2020

Article published online:
11 May 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 
  • References

  • 1 Loh JC, Fukuda Y, Tsuda E, Steadman RJ, Fu FH, Woo SL-Y. Knee stability and graft function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison between 11 o'clock and 10 o'clock femoral tunnel placement. 2002 Richard O'Connor Award paper. Arthroscopy 2003; 19 (03) 297-304
  • 2 Markolf KL, Jackson SR, McAllister DR. A comparison of 11 o'clock versus oblique femoral tunnels in the anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee: knee kinematics during a simulated pivot test. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (05) 912-917
  • 3 Yamamoto Y, Hsu WH, Woo SL, Van Scyoc AH, Takakura Y, Debski RE. Knee stability and graft function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of a lateral and an anatomical femoral tunnel placement. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (08) 1825-1832
  • 4 Lee MC, Seong SC, Lee S. , et al. Vertical femoral tunnel placement results in rotational knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (07) 771-778
  • 5 Dargel J, Schmidt-Wiethoff R, Fischer S, Mader K, Koebke J, Schneider T. Femoral bone tunnel placement using the transtibial tunnel or the anteromedial portal in ACL reconstruction: a radiographic evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (03) 220-227
  • 6 Gadikota HR, Sim JA, Hosseini A, Gill TJ, Li G. 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 2012; 40 (04) 882-888
  • 7 Garofalo R, Moretti B, Kombot C, Moretti L, Mouhsine E. Femoral tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: rationale of the two incision technique. J Orthop Surg Res 2007; 2: 10
  • 8 Robin BN, Jani SS, Marvil SC, Reid JB, Schillhammer CK, Lubowitz JH. Advantages and disadvantages of transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in femoral tunnel drilling in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (07) 1412-1417
  • 9 Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 2007; 28 (32) 4845-4869
  • 10 Görmeli G, Görmeli CA, Karakaplan M, Korkmaz MF, Diliçıkık U, Gözükara H. Outcome of transtibial AperFix system in anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Indian J Orthop 2015; 49 (02) 150-154
  • 11 Sharifzadeh SR, Shahrezaee M, Okhovatpour MA, Boroujeni SA, Banasiri M. Comparison of the effectiveness of femoral fixation techniques (Aperfix and Endobutton) in anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Australas Med J 2017; 10 (09) 816-820
  • 12 Venosa M, Delcogliano M, Padua R, Alviti F, Delcogliano A. Femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial portal versus transtibial technique—a randomized clinical trial. Joints 2017; 5 (01) 34-38
  • 13 MacDonald P, Kim C, McRae S, Leiter J, Khan R, Whelan D. No clinical differences between anteromedial portal and transtibial technique for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized, controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (05) 1335-1342
  • 14 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. , et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (05) 600-613
  • 15 Lysholm J, Tegner Y. Knee injury rating scales. Acta Orthop 2007; 78 (04) 445-453
  • 16 Shin YS, Ro KH, Lee JH, Lee DH. Location of the femoral tunnel aperture in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of the transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in techniques. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (11) 2533-2539
  • 17 Sim JA, Kim JM, Lee S, Song EK, Seon JK. No difference in graft healing or clinical outcome between trans-portal and outside-in techniques after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (08) 2338-2344
  • 18 Simmons R, Howell SM, Hull ML. Effect of the angle of the femoral and tibial tunnels in the coronal plane and incremental excision of the posterior cruciate ligament on tension of an anterior cruciate ligament graft: an in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (06) 1018-1029
  • 19 Nebelung W, Becker R, Merkel M, Röpke M. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with semitendinosus tendon using Endobutton fixation on the femoral side. Arthroscopy 1998; 14 (08) 810-815
  • 20 Höher J, Möller HD, Fu FH. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: fact or fiction?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998; 6 (04) 231-240
  • 21 Wilson TC, Kantaras A, Atay A, Johnson DL. Tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (02) 543-549
  • 22 Peyrache MD, Djian P, Christel P, Witvoet J. Tibial tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by autogenous bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1996; 4 (01) 2-8
  • 23 Buelow JU, Siebold R, Ellermann A. A prospective evaluation of tunnel enlargement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings: extracortical versus anatomical fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2002; 10 (02) 80-85
  • 24 Fauno P, Kaalund S. Tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is influenced by the type of graft fixation used: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (11) 1337-1341
  • 25 Clatworthy MG, Annear P, Bulow JU, Bartlett RJ. Tunnel widening in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective evaluation of hamstring and patella tendon grafts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999; 7 (03) 138-145
  • 26 Debnath A, Raman R, Banka PK, Debnath H. Bone tunnel enlargement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction done using hamstring tendon autografts: A prospective clinical and computed tomography-based evaluation. J Orthop Traumatol Rehabil 2018; 10 (02) 131-136
  • 27 Marchant Jr MH, Willimon SC, Vinson E, Pietrobon R, Garrett WE, Higgins LD. Comparison of plain radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (08) 1059-1064
  • 28 Magen HE, Howell SM, Hull ML. Structural properties of six tibial fixation methods for anterior cruciate ligament soft tissue grafts. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27 (01) 35-43
  • 29 Lopez MJ, Spencer N, Casey JP, Monroe WT. Biomechanical characteristics of an implant used to secure semitendinosus-gracilis tendon grafts in a canine model of extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Vet Surg 2007; 36 (06) 599-604