Anteromedial versus central single‐bundle graft position: which anatomic graft position to choose?
- 5 November 2011
- journal article
- knee
- Published by Wiley in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
- Vol. 20 (7) , 1276-1281
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the time‐zero stability of an anatomic anteromedial (AM) single‐bundle ACL reconstruction to an anatomic central (CTR) single‐bundle ACL reconstruction.Methods: Twelve (6 paired) hip to knee cadaveric specimens were studied. Using custom ACL computer navigation software, a Lachman test and a previously validated, navigated mechanized pivot shift test were performed on 4 separate experimental groups in each specimen: (1) intact ACL, (2) ACL deficient with total medial and lateral meniscectomy, (3) following anatomic AM single‐bundle ACL reconstruction, and (4) after anatomic CTR single‐bundle ACL reconstruction. Maximum anterior tibial translation in each group was measured.Results: Lachman: No significant difference was observed between the AM and CTR reconstructions (n.s.) or between reconstruction and the intact ACL (3.4 ± 1.7 mm) (n.s.). Pivot Shift: Both the AM and CTR ACL reconstructions significantly reduced anterior translation relative to the ACL/menisci‐deficient condition (lateral compartment: 8.9 ± 3.8 mm and 6.75 ± 4.6 mm vs. 17.25 ± 3.5 mm, respectively; P < 0.001 and medial compartment: −3.0 ± 5.3 mm vs. −3.7 ± 5.7 mm vs. 6.2 ± 6.7 mm, P < 0.05). There was also a significant difference between the AM (P < 0.001) and CTR (P < 0.05) ACL reconstructions and the intact ACL (2.8 ± 4.4 mm) for lateral compartment translation. Further, no difference was found between lateral or medial compartment translations in the AM versus CTR reconstructions (n.s.).Conclusions: It has been shown that there was no difference in the time‐zero biomechanical stability between an anatomic anteromedial and anatomic central single‐bundle ACL reconstruction. Given the current debate on the best anatomic ACL reconstruction technique, anatomic socket position in either the anteromedial or central locations provides similar time‐zero biomechanics.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effect of Femoral Socket Position on Graft Impingement After Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2011
- Practice Patterns for Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Meniscal Surgery in the United StatesThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010
- The Effects of Extra-articular Starting Point and Transtibial Femoral Drilling on the Intra-articular Aperture of the Tibial Tunnel in ACL ReconstructionThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010
- MRI Measurement of the 2 Bundles of the Normal Anterior Cruciate LigamentOrthopedics, 2009
- Replication of the Range of Native Anterior Cruciate Ligament Fiber Length Change Behavior Achieved by Different GraftsThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2009
- Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2009
- Changes in the Length of Virtual Anterior Cruciate Ligament Fibers during Stability TestingThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2008
- Tibial Tunnel Placement in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions and Graft ImpingementClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1992
- A comparison of acute anterior cruciate ligament examinationsThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1985
- The acute pivot shift: Clinical correlationThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1984