Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593966
Efficacy of Two Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Publication History
06 July 2016
18 September 2016
Publication Date:
15 December 2016 (online)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/jks/201706/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-s-0036-1593966_160124oa-1.jpg)
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare failure rate and functional outcome in young, active patients (< 25 years) with two-incision (rear-entry) versus transtibial (all-endoscopic) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.
Utilizing a computerized relational database (Access 2007, Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA), 480 patients were identified that underwent ACL reconstruction, using a bone-patellar-tendon-bone autograft, by a single surgeon between January 2000 and December 2010 via a transtibial or two-incision technique. Totally, 377 (78.6%) of these patients were less than 25 years of age. Data for each patient were collected at their initial clinic visit, at the time of surgery, and at each follow-up clinic visit and entered into the computerized relational database. Overall, 274 patients (72.7%) underwent ACL reconstruction with a transtibial technique, and 103 patients (27.3%) underwent reconstruction with a two-incision technique. Failures were identified as a 2+ Lachman, 1+ or greater pivot shift, or a KT-1000 arthrometer difference of five or more.
In patients < 25 years of age, there were 10 failures (9.7%) out of 103 patients undergoing a two-incision reconstruction and 28 failures (10.2%) out of 274 patients undergoing a transtibial reconstruction (p = 1.000). There was no statistical significance between the failure rate in the two different groups in regards to gender, meniscal tear, activity level, or any other factor that was analyzed.
Our study showed no statistical difference between the two-incision technique and the transtibial technique for ACL reconstruction using bone-patellar-tendon-bone autograft with an overall 10.1% failure rate in young, active patients (< 25 years of age). The level of evidence is level IV.
-
References
- 1 Barenius B, Ponzer S, Shalabi A, Bujak R, Norlén L, Eriksson K. Increased risk of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 14-year follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (05) 1049-1057
- 2 Lohmander LS, Ostenberg A, Englund M, Roos H. High prevalence of knee osteoarthritis, pain, and functional limitations in female soccer players twelve years after anterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50 (10) 3145-3152
- 3 Oiestad BE, Holm I, Aune AK. , et al. Knee function and prevalence of knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study with 10 to 15 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (11) 2201-2210
- 4 Papannagari R, Gill TJ, Defrate LE, Moses JM, Petruska AJ, Li G. In vivo kinematics of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and functional evaluation. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (12) 2006-2012
- 5 Howell SM, Deutsch ML. Comparison of endoscopic and two-incision techniques for reconstructing a torn anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring tendons. Arthroscopy 1999; 15 (06) 594-606
- 6 Heming JF, Rand J, Steiner ME. Anatomical limitations of transtibial drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (10) 1708-1715
- 7 Kopf S, Forsythe B, Wong AK. , et al. Nonanatomic tunnel position in traditional transtibial single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (06) 1427-1431
- 8 Kopf S, Forsythe B, Wong AK, Tashman S, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH. Transtibial ACL reconstruction technique fails to position drill tunnels anatomically in vivo 3D CT study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (11) 2200-2207
- 9 Garofalo R, Moretti B, Kombot C, Moretti L, Mouhsine E. Femoral tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: rationale of the two incision technique. J Orthop Surg 2007; 2: 10
- 10 Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind MC. Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (01) 98-105
- 11 Dargel J, Schmidt-Wiethoff R, Fischer S, Mader K, Koebke J, Schneider T. Femoral bone tunnel placement using the transtibial tunnel or the anteromedial portal in ACL reconstruction: a radiographic evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (03) 220-227
- 12 Kurosaka M, Yoshiya S, Andrish JT. A biomechanical comparison of different surgical techniques of graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1987; 15 (03) 225-229
- 13 Kim MK, Lee BC, Park JH. Anatomic single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by the two anteromedial portal method: the comparison of transportal and transtibial techniques. Knee Surg Relat Res 2011; 23 (04) 213-219
- 14 Abebe ES, Moorman III CT, Dziedzic TS. , et al. Femoral tunnel placement during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vivo imaging analysis comparing transtibial and 2-incision tibial tunnel-independent techniques. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (10) 1904-1911
- 15 Barrett AM, Craft JA, Replogle WH, Hydrick JM, Barrett GR. Anterior cruciate ligament graft failure: a comparison of graft type based on age and Tegner activity level. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (10) 2194-2198
- 16 George MS, Huston LJ, Spindler KP. Endoscopic versus rear-entry ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 455 (455) 158-161
- 17 Arciero RA, Scoville CR, Snyder RJ, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC, Huggard DJ. Single versus two-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1996; 12 (04) 462-469
- 18 Sgaglione NA, Schwartz RE. Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: initial clinical experience and minimal 2-year follow-up comparing endoscopic transtibial and two-incision techniques. Arthroscopy 1997; 13 (02) 156-165
- 19 Ferretti M, Ekdahl M, Shen W, Fu FH. Osseous landmarks of the femoral attachment of the anterior cruciate ligament: an anatomic study. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (11) 1218-1225
- 20 Woo SL, Kanamori A, Zeminski J, Yagi M, Papageorgiou C, Fu FH. The effectiveness of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstrings and patellar tendon. A cadaveric study comparing anterior tibial and rotational loads. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (06) 907-914
- 21 Gadikota HR, Sim JA, Hosseini A, Gill TJ, Li G. The relationship between femoral tunnels created by the transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in techniques and the anterior cruciate ligament footprint. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (04) 882-888
- 22 Bedi A, Musahl V, Steuber V. , et al. Transtibial versus anteromedial portal reaming in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an anatomic and biomechanical evaluation of surgical technique. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (03) 380-390
- 23 Garofalo R, Mouhsine E, Chambat P, Siegrist O. Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the two-incision technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (06) 510-516
- 24 Lee MC, Seong SC, Lee S. , et al. Vertical femoral tunnel placement results in rotational knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (07) 771-778
- 25 Howell SM, Clark JA. Tibial tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and graft impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (283) 187-195
- 26 Loh JC, Fukuda Y, Tsuda E, Steadman RJ, Fu FH, Woo SL. Knee stability and graft function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparison between 11 o'clock and 10 o'clock femoral tunnel placement. 2002 Richard O'Connor Award paper. Arthroscopy 2003; 19 (03) 297-304