Radiographic Landmarks for Tunnel Positioning in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions

Department of BioMedical Engineering, Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.7). 11/2012; 41(1). DOI: 10.1177/0363546512465072
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND:Consistent radiographic guidelines for tunnel placement in single- or double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstructions are not well defined. Quantitative guidelines reporting the location of the individual PCL bundle attachments would aid in intraoperative tunnel placement and postoperative assessment of a PCL reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS:Consistent and reproducible measurements in relation to radiographic landmarks for the entire PCL and its individual bundle attachments are achievable. STUDY DESIGN:Controlled laboratory study. METHODS:The femoral and tibial PCL bundle attachment centers of 20 nonpaired fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were labeled using radio-opaque spheres and the attachment areas were labeled using barium sulfate. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of the femur and tibia were obtained, and measurements of the distances between the PCL bundle centers and landmarks were acquired. RESULTS:On the AP femur view, the anterolateral bundle (ALB) and posteromedial bundle (PMB) centers were 34.1 ± 3.0 mm and 29.2 ± 3.0 mm lateral to the most medial border of the medial femoral condyle, respectively. The lateral femur images revealed that the ALB center was 17.4 ± 1.7 mm and the PMB center was 23.9 ± 2.7 mm posteroproximal to a line perpendicular to the Blumensaat line that intersected the anterior margin of the medial femoral condyle cortex. Anteroposterior tibia images revealed that the ALB and PMB centers were located 0.2 ± 2.1 mm proximal and 4.9 ± 2.9 mm distal to the proximal joint line, respectively. The PCL attachment center was 1.6 ± 2.5 mm distal to the proximal joint line. On the lateral tibia view, the ALB center was 8.4 ± 1.8 mm, the PCL attachment center was 5.5 ± 1.7 mm, and the PMB center was 2.5 ± 1.5 mm superior to the champagne glass drop-off of the posterior tibia. CONCLUSION:Radiographic measurements from several clinically relevant views of the femur and tibia were reproducible with regard to the anatomic locations of the ALB and PMB centers. The measurements from the lateral femur and tibia views provided the most clinically pertinent radiographic measurements intraoperatively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:This study established a set of clinically relevant radiographic guidelines for anatomic reconstruction of the PCL. The parameters set forth in this study can be used in both the intraoperative and postoperative settings for both single- and double-bundle PCL reconstructions.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is recognized as an essential stabilizer of the knee. However, the complexity of the ligament has generated controversy about its definitive role and the recommended treatment after injury. A proper understanding of the functional role of the PCL is necessary to minimize residual instability, osteoarthritic progression, and failure of additional concomitant ligament graft reconstructions or meniscal repairs after treatment. Recent anatomic and biomechanical studies have elucidated the surgically relevant quantitative anatomy and confirmed the codominant role of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles of the PCL. Although nonoperative treatment has historically been the initial treatment of choice for isolated PCL injury, possibly biased by the historically poorer objective outcomes postoperatively compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions, surgical intervention has been increasingly used for isolated and combined PCL injuries. Recent studies have more clearly elucidated the biomechanical and clinical effects after PCL tears and resultant treatments. This article presents a thorough review of updates on the clinically relevant anatomy, epidemiology, biomechanical function, diagnosis, and current treatments for the PCL, with an emphasis on the emerging clinical and biomechanical evidence regarding each of the treatment choices for PCL reconstruction surgery. It is recommended that future outcomes studies use PCL stress radiographs to determine objective outcomes and that evidence level 1 and 2 studies be performed to assess outcomes between transtibial and tibial inlay reconstructions and also between single- and double-bundle PCL reconstructions. © 2015 The Author(s).
    The American Journal of Sports Medicine 03/2015; DOI:10.1177/0363546515572770 · 4.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work was to report the main characteristics and results of all active anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction registers along with the differences between them. We systematically searched on Google and Medline via PubMed to identify ACL registers. National or regional registers were included if they were active and took into account ACL reconstructions. The main results and characteristics, namely the number of inclusions, exhaustivity, data collection methods and results dissemination methods were determined. The collected information was then submitted to each register for validation. Four registers (3 national, 1 regional) were identified that routinely included every ACL reconstruction procedure. Register data were collected either through dedicated websites or on paper forms. All the registers used the same two outcome measures, namely the revision rate and a subjective patient score (KOOS score). Register results were made available through scientific publications or annual reports. The main differences between registers were in the graft choice and presence of associated meniscus and cartilage injuries. Although there are only a few ACL reconstruction-specific registers, their scientific contribution is undeniable thanks to the quality of the collected data and the organization and collaboration between registers. Their impact on health care and science should grow in the future. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
    Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.07.020 · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of femoral tunnel collisions between the medial collateral ligament (MCL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tunnels during a simultaneous PCL and MCL reconstruction. Fourth generation medium and large synthetic femur bones were used. On each femur, a MCL tunnel and a PCL tunnel were reamed. The MCL tunnel was drilled at 0°, 20° and 40° of axial and coronal angulations. The PCL femoral tunnel was reamed to simulate two different tunnel directions that could be obtained through an inside-out and outside-in technique. Tunnels were filled with epoxy resin augmented with BaSO4, and a multidetector CT examination of each specimen was performed. High rate of tunnel collision (62.5 %) was found when the MCL femoral tunnel was reamed with a coronal angulation of 0° and 20°. The rate of tunnel collision significantly decreased (0 %) when the MCL tunnel was reamed proximally with a coronal angulation of 40°. No differences were found between the two PCL tunnel directions in terms of tunnel collision. The results of this study can help surgeons to better direct the femoral MCL tunnel in order to avoid a collision between femoral tunnels during a combined MCL and PCL reconstruction. In order to minimize such potential complications, the MCL tunnel should be created limiting the axial angulation and it should be drilled with a proximal angulation from 20° to 40°, depending on the medial condyle width.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 11/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00167-014-3446-y · 2.84 Impact Factor