Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis

Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., GRJ 1215, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
International Orthopaedics (Impact Factor: 2.02). 08/2011; 36(4):845-52. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-011-1333-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It has been reported that technical error in positioning the graft tunnel is the most common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate femoral and tibial tunnel positions and intra-articular graft orientation of primary ACL reconstruction in patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction. We postulated that this patient cohort had a nonanatomically positioned tunnel and graft orientation.
Twenty-six patients who had undergone a revision ACL were investigated. Clinical magnetic resonance (MR) images prior to revision were analysed. Three-dimensional models of bones and tunnels on the femur and tibia were created. Intra-articular graft orientation was measured in axial, sagittal and coronal planes. Graft positions were measured on the tibial plateau as a percentage from anterior to posterior and medial to lateral; graft positions on the femur were measured using the quadrant method.
Sagittal elevation angle for failed ACL reconstruction graft (69.6° ± 13.4°) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of the native anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles of the ACL (AM 56.2° ± 6.1°, PL 55.5° ± 8.1°). In the transverse plane, the deviation angle of the failed graft (37.3° ± 21.0°) was significantly greater than native ACL bundles. The tibial tunnel in this patient cohort was placed posteromedially and medially to the anatomical AM and PL bundles, respectively. The femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly to the anatomical AM and PL bundles.
This study reveals that both the tibial and femoral tunnel positions and consequently the intra-articular graft orientation in this patient group with failed ACL reconstruction were nonanatomical when compared with native ACL values. The results can be used to improve tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Correct anatomic tunnel positions are essential in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. To establish recommendations for tunnel positioning based on anatomical findings and to compare tunnel positions with clinical results, different radiological measurement methods as the quadrant method exist. Comparing the data of different observers requires the validation of the reliability of measurement methods. The purpose of this study therefore was to determine the reliability of the quadrant method to measure tunnel positions in ACL reconstruction. The hypothesis was, that the quadrant method shows a low inter- and intraobserver variability. In a test/retest scenario 20 knee surgeons were asked to determine defined tunnel positions in five lateral radiographs applying the quadrant method. Rotation, angle deviation, height and depth of the quadrant as well as absolute and relative tunnel positions of each observation were measured along referenced scales. Mean sizes and angle deviations of the quadrants, tunnel positions and deviations between the test/retest positions were calculated as well as standard deviations and range. Interobserver variability analyses, to plan as well as to determine tunnel positions in ACL reconstruction, showed a mean variability (SD) of <1 mm, with ranges of 2.5 mm for planning and 3.7 mm for determination of tunnel positions using the quadrant method. Intraobserver analysis showed mean variability with deviations of <1 mm and maximum standard deviations of 0.7 mm and ranges of up to 2.3 mm. We confirmed the hypothesis that the quadrant method has a low inter- and intraobserver variability. Based on the presented validation data, the quadrant method can be recommended as reliable method to radiographically describe insertion areas of the ACL as well as to determine tunnel positions in ACL reconstruction intra and postoperatively.
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 01/2014; 134(4). DOI:10.1007/s00402-014-1931-x · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing an "intact" anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft may not correlate well with examination findings. Reasons for an ACL graft dysfunction may be from malpositioned tunnels, deficiency of secondary stabilizers, repeat injuries, or a combination of factors. PURPOSE:To evaluate the concordance/discordance of an ACL graft assessment between an arthroscopic evaluation, physical examination, and MRI and secondarily to evaluate the contributing variables to discordance. STUDY DESIGN:Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS:A total of 50 ACL revisions in 48 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The ACL graft status was recorded separately based on Lachman and pivot-shift test data, arthroscopic findings from operative reports, and MRI evaluation and was categorized into 3 groups: intact, partial tear, or complete tear. Two independent evaluators reviewed all of the preoperative radiographs and MRI scans, and interrater and intrarater reliability were evaluated. Concordance and discordance between a physical examination, arthroscopic evaluation, and MRI evaluation of the ACL graft were calculated. Graft position and type, mechanical axis, collateral ligament injuries, chondral and meniscal injuries, and mechanism of injury were evaluated as possible contributing factors using univariate and multivariate analyses. Sensitivity and specificity of MRI to detect a torn ACL graft and meniscal and chondral injuries on arthroscopic evaluation were calculated. RESULTS:The interobserver and intraobserver reliability for the MRI evaluation of the ACL graft were moderate, with combined κ values of .41 and .49, respectively. The femoral tunnel position was vertical in 88% and anterior in 46%. On MRI, the ACL graft was read as intact in 24%; however, no graft was intact on arthroscopic evaluation or physical examination. The greatest discordance was between the physical examination and MRI, with a rate of 52%. An insidious-onset mechanism of injury was significantly associated with discordance between MRI and arthroscopic evaluation of the ACL (P = .0003) and specifically with an intact ACL graft on MRI (P = .0014). The sensitivity and specificity of MRI to detect an ACL graft tear were 60% and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSION:Caution should be used when evaluating a failed ACL graft with MRI, especially in the absence of an acute mechanism of injury, as it may be unreliable and inconsistent.
    The American Journal of Sports Medicine 05/2014; 42(7). DOI:10.1177/0363546514532335 · 4.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is one of the commonest knee sport injuries. The annual incidence of the ACL injury is between 100000-200000 in the United States. Worldwide around 400000 ACL reconstructions are performed in a year. The goal of ACL reconstruction is to restore the normal knee anatomy and kinesiology. The tibial and femoral tunnel placements are of primordial importance in achieving this outcome. Other factors that influence successful reconstruction are types of grafts, surgical techniques and rehabilitation programmes. A comprehensive understanding of ACL anatomy has led to the development of newer techniques supplemented by more robust biological and mechanical concepts. In this review we are mainly focussing on the evolution of tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction, focusing on three main categories, i.e., anatomical, biological and clinical outcomes. The importance of tunnel placement in the success of ACL reconstruction is well researched. Definite clinical and functional data is lacking to establish the superiority of the single or double bundle reconstruction technique. While there is a trend towards the use of anteromedial portals for femoral tunnel placement, their clinical superiority over trans-tibial tunnels is yet to be established.
    03/2015; 6(2):252-62. DOI:10.5312/wjo.v6.i2.252

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014