ABSTRACT
Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair is an alternative to reconstruction; however, suture tape support may be necessary to achieve adequate outcomes. Purposes: To investigate the influence of suture tape augmentation (STA) of proximal ACL repair on knee kinematics and to evaluate the effect of the 2 flexion angles of suture tape fixation. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Fourteen cadaveric knees were tested using a 6 degrees of freedom robotic testing system under anterior tibial (AT) load, simulated pivot-shift (PS) load, and internal rotation (IR) and external rotation loads. Kinematics and in situ tissue forces were evaluated. Knee states tested were (1) ACL intact, (2) ACL cut, (3) ACL repair with suture only, (4) ACL repair with STA fixed at 0° of knee flexion, and (5) ACL repair with STA fixed at 20° of knee flexion. Results: ACL repair alone did not restore the intact ACL AT translation at 0°, 15°, 30°, or 60° of flexion. Adding suture tape to the repair significantly decreased AT translation at 0°, 15°, and 30° of knee flexion but not to the level of the intact ACL. With PS and IR loadings, only ACL repair with STA fixed at 20° of flexion was not significantly different from the intact state at all knee flexion angles. ACL suture repair had significantly lower in situ forces than the intact ACL with AT, PS, and IR loadings. With AT, PS, and IR loadings, adding suture tape significantly increased the in situ force in the repaired ACL at all knee flexion angles to become closer to that of the intact ACL state. Conclusion: For complete proximal ACL tears, suture repair alone did not restore normal knee laxity or normal ACL in situ force. However, adding suture tape to augment the repair resulted in knee laxity closer to that of the intact ACL. STA with fixation at 20° of knee flexion was superior to fixation with the knee in full extension. Clinical Relevance: The study findings suggest that ACL repair with STA fixed at 20° could be considered in the treatment of femoral sided ACL tears in the appropriate patient population.
ABSTRACT
Background: For combined reconstruction of both the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), there is no consensus regarding which graft should be tensioned and fixed first. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine which sequence of graft tensioning and fixation better restores normal knee kinematics. The hypothesis was that ACL-first fixation would more closely restore normal knee kinematics, graft force, and the tibiofemoral orientation in the neutral (resting) position compared with PCL-first fixation. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 15 unpaired human cadaveric knees were examined using a robotic testing system under the following 4 conditions: (1) 89.0-N anterior tibial load at different knee angles; (2) 89.0-N posterior tibial load at different knee angles; (3) combined rotational 7.0-N·m valgus and 5.0-N·m internal rotation load (simulated pivot shift) at 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion; and (4) 5.0-N·m external rotation load at 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion. The 4 evaluated knee states were (1) intact ACL and PCL (intact), (2) ACL and PCL deficient (deficient), (3) combined anatomic ACL-PCL reconstruction fixing the ACL first (ACL-first), and (4) combined anatomic ACL-PCL reconstruction fixing the PCL first (PCL-first). A 9.0 mm-diameter quadriceps tendon autograft was used for the ACL graft, tensioned with 40.0 N at 30° of flexion. A 9.5 mm-diameter hamstring tendon autograft (gracilis and semitendinosus, quadrupled loop, and augmented with an additional allograft strand if needed), tensioned with 40.0 N at 90° of flexion, was used for the PCL graft. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between ACL-first and PCL-first fixation regarding knee kinematics. ACL-first fixation restored anterior tibial translation to the intact state at all tested knee angles, while PCL-first fixation showed higher anterior tibial translation than the intact state at 90° of flexion (9.05 ± 3.05 and 5.87 ± 2.40 mm, respectively; P = .018). Neither sequence restored posterior tibial translation to the intact state at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion. At 15° of flexion, PCL-first fixation restored posterior tibial translation to the intact state, whereas ACL-first fixation did not. Conclusion: There were no differences in knee laxity between ACL-first and PCL-first fixation with the ACL graft fixed at 30° and the PCL graft fixed at 90°. Clinical Relevance: This study showed that there was no evidence to support the use of one tensioning sequence over the other in single-stage multiligament knee reconstruction.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A lateral meniscal (LM) disorder is one factor that causes rotational laxity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). There are different types of irreparable meniscal disorders, one of which is a massive meniscal defect. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the kinematic effects of arthroscopic centralization on an irreparable LM defect. The hypothesis was that arthroscopic centralization for an irreparable LM defect with concomitant ACLR would improve knee rotational stability. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 14 fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees were tested in 4 states: (1) intact ACL and intact lateral meniscus, (2) reconstructed ACL and intact lateral meniscus, (3) reconstructed ACL and lateral meniscus defect, and (4) reconstructed ACL and centralized lateral meniscus. Anatomic ACLR was performed using an 8 mm-diameter hamstring tendon graft. An LM defect (20% of the anteroposterior length) was created arthroscopically, and arthroscopic centralization was performed. Kinematics were analyzed using a 6 degrees of freedom robotic system under 4 knee loads: (1) an 89.0-N anterior tibial load, (2) a 5.0-N·m external rotation tibial torque, (3) a 5.0-N·m internal rotation tibial torque, and (4) a simulated pivot-shift load with a combined 7.0-N·m valgus and 5.0-N·m internal rotation tibial torque. RESULTS: LM centralization reduced anterior tibial translation similar to that of the ACLR intact LM state under anterior tibial loading (~2 mm at 30° of flexion) and showed 40% to 100% of tibial displacement in the 4 knee states under simulated pivot-shift loading. The procedure overconstrained the knee under internal rotation tibial torque and simulated pivot-shift loading. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic centralization reduced knee laxity after ACLR for a massive LM defect in a cadaveric model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In cases involving irreparable LM injuries during ACLR, consideration should be given to arthroscopic centralization for reducing knee laxity. However, the procedure may overconstrain the knee in certain motions.
