The Hybrid Transtibial Technique for Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Finite Element Analysis Model of Graft Bending Angles and Peak Graft Stresses in Comparison With Transtibial and Anteromedial Portal Techniques

被引:4
作者
Saltzman, Bryan M. [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Shangcheng [3 ]
Habet, Nahir A. [2 ,3 ]
Hong, Ian S. [1 ]
Trofa, David P. [4 ]
Meade, Joshua D. [1 ,2 ]
Fleischli, James E. [1 ,2 ]
Piasecki, Dana P. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] OrthoCarolina Sports Med Ctr, Charlotte, NC 28207 USA
[2] Atrium Hlth, Musculoskeletal Inst, Charlotte, NC 28210 USA
[3] Atrium Hlth, Orthopaed Engn Res Lab, Charlotte, NC USA
[4] Columbia Univ, Med Ctr, New York, NY USA
关键词
IN-VIVO ANALYSIS; SINGLE-BUNDLE; PLACEMENT; POSITION; KNEE;
D O I
10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00883
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: The purpose of this finite element analysis was to compare femoral tunnel length; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft bending angle; and peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area created by the transtibial, anteromedial portal (AMP), and hybrid transtibial techniques. Methods: Finite element analysis modeling was used to examine anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction models based on transtibial, AMP, and hybrid transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques. An evaluation of femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area was done in comparison of these techniques. Results: The femoral tunnel created with the hybrid transtibial technique was 45.3 mm, which was 13.3% longer than that achieved with the AMP technique but 15.2% shorter than that with the transtibial technique. The femoral graft bending angle with the hybrid transtibial technique (105 degrees) was less acute than that with the AMP technique (102 degrees), but more acute than that with the transtibial technique (109 degrees). At 11 degrees knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial technique had 22% less femoral contact force, 21% less tibial contact force, 21% less graft tension than the AMP technique. Yet, the hybrid transtibial technique had 41% greater femoral contact force, 39% greater tibial contact force, 33% greater graft tension, and 6% greater graft von Mises stress than the transtibial technique. A similar trend was found for the anterior knee drawer test. At both 6-mm anterior tibial displacement and 11 degrees knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial and AMP techniques had at least 51% more femoral contact area than the transtibial technique. Conclusion: This finite element analysis highlights that the hybrid transtibial technique is a true hybrid between the AMP and transtibial techniques for femoral tunnel drilling regarding femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, and peak graft stress.
引用
收藏
页码:E1195 / E1206
页数:12
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Portal Reaming in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Anatomic and Biomechanical Evaluation of Surgical Technique
    Bedi, Asheesh
    Musahl, Volker
    Steuber, Volker
    Kendoff, Daniel
    Choi, Dan
    Allen, Answorth A.
    Pearle, Andrew D.
    Altchek, David W.
    [J]. ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2011, 27 (03) : 380 - 390
  • [2] Effect of Tibial Tunnel Position on Stability of the Knee After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is the Tibial Tunnel Position Most Important?
    Bedi, Asheesh
    Maak, Travis
    Musahl, Volker
    Citak, Musa
    O'Loughlin, Padhraig F.
    Choi, Daniel
    Pearle, Andrew D.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2011, 39 (02) : 366 - 373
  • [3] Effect of tibial tunnel diameter on femoral tunnel placement in transtibial single bundle ACL reconstruction
    Bhatia, Sanjeev
    Korth, Kyle
    Van Thiel, Geoffrey S.
    Frank, Rachel M.
    Gupta, Deepti
    Cole, Brian J.
    Bach, Bernard R., Jr.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    [J]. KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2016, 24 (01) : 51 - 57
  • [4] Anteromedial Versus Transtibial Tunnel Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions: A Systematic Review
    Chalmers, Peter N.
    Mall, Nathan A.
    Cole, Brian J.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    Bush-Joseph, Charles A.
    Bach, Bernard R., Jr.
    [J]. ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2013, 29 (07) : 1235 - 1242
  • [5] Duffee A, 2013, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V95A, P2035, DOI [10.2106/JBJS.L.00187, 10.2106/JBJS.M.00187]
  • [6] Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Isometry Is Affected by the Orientation of the Femoral Tunnel
    Ebersole, Gregg M.
    Eckerle, Paul
    Farrow, Lutul D.
    Cutuk, Adnan
    Bledsoe, Gary
    Kaar, Scott
    [J]. JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY, 2016, 29 (03) : 260 - 265
  • [7] Anatomical limitations of transtibial drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Heming, James F.
    Rand, Jason
    Steiner, Mark E.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2007, 35 (10) : 1708 - 1715
  • [8] Medial Portal Drilling: Effects on the Femoral Tunnel Aperture Morphology During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Hensler, Daniel
    Working, Zachary M.
    Illingworth, Kenneth D.
    Thorhauer, Eric D.
    Tashman, Scott
    Fu, Freddie H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2011, 93A (22) : 2063 - 2071
  • [9] Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study of a Rectangular Quadriceps and Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft Configuration Versus a Round Hamstring Graft
    Herbort, Mirco
    Tecklenburg, Katja
    Zantop, Thore
    Raschke, Michael J.
    Hoser, Christian
    Schulze, Martin
    Petersen, Wolf
    Fink, Christian
    [J]. ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2013, 29 (12) : 1981 - 1990
  • [10] Allograft Augmentation of Hamstring Autograft for Younger Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
    Jacobs, Cale A.
    Burnham, Jeremy M.
    Makhni, Eric C.
    Malempati, Chaitu S.
    Swart, Eric
    Johnson, Darren L.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2017, 45 (04) : 892 - 899