Biomechanical Evaluation of Two Techniques for Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Authors:
- 1 February 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Vol. 35 (2) , 228-234
Abstract
Background: This research was undertaken to determine whether there is a need for a second tibial tunnel in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Hypothesis: Anatomic two-bundle reconstruction with two tibial tunnels restores knee anterior tibial translation in response to 134 N and to 5-N·m internal tibial torque combined with 10-N·m valgus torque more closely to normal than does double-bundle reconstruction with one tibial tunnel. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Ten cadaveric knees were subjected to a 134-N anterior tibial load at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° and to 5-N·m internal tibial torque and 10-N·m valgus torque at 15° and 30°. Resulting knee kinematics and in situ force in the anterior cruciate ligament or replacement graft were determined by using a robotic/universal force-moment sensor testing system for (1) intact, (2) anterior cruciate ligament–deficient, (3) double-bundle/one tibial tunnel, and (4) double-bundle/two tibial tunnels. Results: Anterior tibial translation for the reconstruction with two tibial tunnels was significantly closer to that of the intact knee than was the reconstruction with one tibial tunnel at 0° and 30° of flexion (0° = 3.82 vs 6.0 mm, P < .05; 30° = 7.99 vs 11 mm, P < .05). The in situ force normalized to the intact anterior cruciate ligament for the reconstruction with two tibial tunnels was significantly higher than the in situ force of the reconstruction with one tibial tunnel (30° = 89 vs 82 N, P < .05). With a combined rotatory load, the anterior tibial translation of specimens with a tibial two-tunnel technique was significantly lower than that of specimens with one tunnel (0° = 5.7 vs 8.4 mm, P < .05; 30° = 7.5 vs 9.5 mm, P < .05). Conclusions: Anatomic reconstruction with two tibial tunnels may produce a better biomechanical outcome, especially close to extension. Clinical Relevance: At the time of initial fixation, there appears to be a small biomechanical advantage to the second tibial tunnel in the setting of two-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical Evaluation of Anatomic Double‐Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedure Using Hamstring Tendon Grafts: Comparisons Among 3 Different ProceduresArthroscopy, 2006
- A Retrospective Study of the Midterm Outcome of Two‐Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Quadrupled Semitendinosus Tendon in Comparison With One‐Bundle ReconstructionArthroscopy, 2006
- Importance of Femoral Tunnel Placement in Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2006
- Double-stranded hamstring graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstructionArthroscopy, 2004
- Distribution of in situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament in response to rotatory loadsJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 2004
- In situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament and its bundles in response to anterior tibial loadsJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 1997
- A combined robotic/universal force sensor approach to determine in situ forces of knee ligamentsJournal of Biomechanics, 1996
- Determination of the in situ loads on the human anterior cruciate ligamentJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 1993
- An analysis of the pivot shift phenomenonThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1991
- The Cruciate Ligaments of the Knee JointClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1975