ObjectiveTo introduce the method of prior-localization femoral tunnel by using a special positioning tool under the C-arm radiographic machine before surgery, and to study the effect on the knee function recovery after medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction.MethodsBetween January 2014 and January 2016, 32 patients with recurrent unilateral knee patellar dislocation were treated by arthroscopic patellofemoral lateral retinaculum release and MPFL reconstruction. The femoral tunnel position during MPFL reconstruction was prior-localizated under C-arm radiographic machine before operation. There were 8 males and 24 females, aged from 15 to 37 years, with an average of 23.8 years. The time from injury to admission ranged from 1 to 24 months, with an average of 9.7 months. Isometric point distance was measured on CT three-dimensional reconstruction image after operation to evaluate whether the position of femoral tunnel was isometric, and knee joint function was evaluated by Lysholm score. Spearman correlation analysis was performed between isometric point distance and Lysholm score.ResultsAll the 32 patients were followed up 12-18 months (mean, 14.2 months). No symptoms of patellar subluxation or dislocation was found during follow-up. Patellar extrapolation test and patellar extrapolation fear test were negative. The isometric point distance was 1.5-5.9 mm (mean, 3.44 mm) at 3 days after operation. All femoral tunnels were located in equidistant tunnels. At last follow-up, the Lysholm score of the patients was 92.8±2.1, which was significantly improved when compared with preoperative score (54.4±2.8) (t=61.911, P=0.000). Isometric point distance was negatively correlated with Lysholm score (r=–0.454, P=0.009).ConclusionC-arm radiographic machine can locate the femoral tunnel position of MPFL easily and accurately before operation. The short-term and medium-term effectiveness are satisfactory, and the ionizing radiation injury caused by multiple fluoroscopy during operation is avoided.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of femoral oval tunnel technique versus round tunnel technique in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.MethodsBetween March 2016 and February 2018, 125 patients who underwent anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon and met the inclusive criteria were included in the retrospective study. Of the included patients, 43 patients underwent ACL reconstruction using oval tunnel technique (group A) and 82 patients with round tunnel technique (group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, the interval between injury and operation, the injured side, the cause of injury, and preoperative Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner score, and the outcome of KT-1000 measurement (P>0.05). At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after operation, the knee function scores (Lysholm score, IKDC score, Tegner score) were recorded; and KT-1000 was used to evaluate the knee stability. The position and shape of the tunnels were evaluated by the three-dimensional CT (3D-CT) at 1 day after operation; and MRI was performed at 6, 12, and 24 months to calculate the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of ACL grafts. Secondary arthroscopy was conducted to estimate the graft status, synovial coverage, and tension.ResultsAll patients were followed up 12-26 months (mean, 23 months). Two patients in group A and 5 patients in group B presented with redness and swelling of the surgical site, 1 patient in group B sustained a tibial tunnel fracture, and 1 patient in group A had postoperative stiffness. The Lysholm score, IKDC score, and Tegner score were significantly higher in group A than in group B at the different time points (P<0.05) except for the Tegner score at 3 months. The outcomes of KT-1000 measurement were significantly lower in group A than in group B (P<0.05). The entrances of the femoral tunnel and tibial tunnel in both groups were within the ACL anatomical footprint confirmed by 3D-CT. No re-rupture of ACL occurred confirmed by the MRI. There was no significant difference in SNQs of the middle and distal grafts between the two groups at 6 months (P>0.05), whereas the SNQ of the proximal grafts in group A was significantly lower than that in group B (P<0.05). The SNQs of the proximal, middle, and distal grafts in group A were significantly lower than those in group B at 12 and 24 months after operation (P<0.05). Twenty-one patients in group A and 38 patients in group B underwent secondary arthroscopy and the results showed no significant difference in graft status, synovial coverage, and tension between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionThe effectiveness and graft maturity of the femoral oval tunnel technique were superior to the round tunnel technique. The single-bundle ACL reconstruction with femoral oval tunnel technique can obtain a better knee function.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and provide a clinical reference for treatment of ACL rupture.MethodsThe literature about the femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction was widely reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages and the clinical results of each method were summarized.ResultsCurrently in ACL reconstruction, methods for femoral tunnel positioning include transtibial technique (TT), anteromedial technique (AM), outside-in (OI), modified TT (mTT), and computer assisted surgery. There is no significant difference in the postoperative effectiveness between TT technique and AM technique. Compared with the TT technique, the OI technique has higher rotational stability of knee, but there is no significant difference in clinical results. The femoral tunnel located by mTT technique is closer to the anatomical placement than that of TT technique, but mTT technique is not effective for systematically anatomic femoral tunnel positioning, and further research is needed to prove its advantages.ConclusionDifferent femoral tunnel positioning methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and there is no definite evidence that one is superior than the rest.
ObjectiveTo review the research progress of location methods and the best femoral insertion position of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction of femoral tunnel, and provide reference for surgical treatment.MethodsThe literature about femoral insertion position of the MPFL reconstruction in recent years was extensively reviewed, and the anatomical and biomechanical characteristics of MPFL, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of femoral tunnel positioning methods were summarized.ResultsThe accurate establishment of the femoral anatomical tunnel is crucial to the success of MPFL reconstruction. At present, there are mainly two kinds of methods for femoral insertion: radiographic landmark positioning method and anatomical landmark positioning method. Radiographic landmark positioning method has such advantages as small incision and simple operation, but it can not be accurately positioned for patients with severe femoral trochlear dysplasia. It is suggested to combine with the anatomical landmark positioning method. These methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and there is no unified positioning standard. In recent years, the use of three-dimensional design software can accurately assist in the MPFL reconstruction, which has become a new trend.ConclusionFemoral tunnel positioning of the MPFL reconstruction is very important. The current positioning methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. Personalized positioning is a new trend and has not been widely used in clinic, its effectiveness needs further research and clinical practice and verification.
Objective To investigate whether the outlet of the femoral tunnel will cause iatrogenic injury to the medial collateral ligament (MCL) during posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) and estimate the safe angle of femoral tunnel placement. MethodsThirteen formaldehyde-soaked human knee joint specimens were used, 8 from men and 5 from women; the donors’ age ranged from 49 to 71 years, with an average of 61 years. First, the medial part of the femur was carefully dissected to clearly expose the region of the MCL course and attachment on the femoral medial aspect and to outline the anterior margin of the region with a marked line. The marked line divided the medial femoral condyle into an area with an MCL course and a bare bone area which is regarded relatively safe for no MCL course. Then, the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was cut to identify the femoral attachment of the PCL. After the knee joint was fixed at a 120° flexion angle, the process of femoral tunnel preparation for the PCL single-bundle reconstruction was simulated. The inside-out technique was used to drill the femoral tunnel from the PCL femoral footprint inside the knee joint with an orientation to exit the medial condyle of the femur, and the combination angle of the two planes, the axial plane and the coronal plane, was adapted to the process of drilling femoral tunnels at different orientations. The following 15 angle combinations were used in the study: 0°/30°, 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/30°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, 30°/30°, 30°/45°, 30°/60°, 45°/30°, 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, 60°/60° (axial/coronal). The positional relationship between the femoral tunnel outlet on the femoral medial condyle and the marked line was used to verify whether the tunnel drilling angle was a risk factor for MCL injury or not, and whether the shortest distance between the femoral exit center and the marked line was affected by the various angle combinations. Furthermore, the safe orientation of the femoral tunnel placement would estimated. ResultsWhen creating the femoral tunnel for PCLR, there was a risk of damage to the MCL caused by the tunnel outlet, and the incidence was from 0 to 100%; when the drilling angle of the axial plane was 0° and 15°, the incidence of MCL damage was from 69.23% to 100%. There was a significant difference in the incidence of MCL damage among femoral tunnels of 15 angle combinations (χ2=148.195, P<0.001). By comparison between groups, it was found that when drilling femoral tunnels at 5 combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal), the shortest distances between the tunnel exit and the marked line were significantly different than 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, and 30°/30° (axial/coronal) (P<0.05). Additionally, after comparing the median of the shortest distance with other groups, the outlets generated by these 5 angles were farther from the marked line and the posterior MCL. ConclusionThe creation of the femoral tunnel in PCLR can cause iatrogenic MCL injury, and the risk is affected by the tunnel angle. To reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury, angle combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal) are recommended for preparing the femoral tunnel in PCLR.
Objective To investigate the changes of knee joint kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction assisted by personalized femoral positioner based on the apex of deep cartilage (ADC). Methods Between January 2021 and January 2022, a total of 40 patients with initial ACL rupture who met the selection criteria were randomly divided into the study group (using the personalized femoral positioner based on ADC design to assist ACL reconstruction) and the control group (not using the personalized femoral positioner to assist ACL reconstruction), with 20 patients in each group. Another 20 volunteers with normal knee were collected as a healthy group. There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, and affected side between groups (P>0.05). Gait analysis was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation using Opti _ Knee three-dimensional knee joint motion measurement and analysis system, and the 6 degrees of freedom (flexion and extension angle, varus and valgus angle, internal and external rotation angle, anteroposterior displacement, superior and inferior displacement, internal and external displacement) and motion cycle (maximum step length, minimum step length, and step frequency) of the knee joint were recorded. The patients’ data was compared to the data of healthy group. Results In the healthy group, the flexion and extension angle was (57.80±3.45)°, the varus and valgus angle was (10.54±1.05)°, the internal and external rotation angle was (13.02±1.66)°, and the anteroposterior displacement was (1.44±0.39) cm, the superior and inferior displacement was (0.86±0.20) cm, and the internal and external displacement was (1.38±0.39) cm. The maximum step length was (51.24±1.29) cm, the minimum step length was (45.69±2.28) cm, and the step frequency was (12.45±0.47) step/minute. Compared with the healthy group, the flexion and extension angles and internal and external rotation angles of the patients in the study group and the control group decreased at 3 months after operation, and the flexion and extension angles of the patients in the control group decreased at 6 months after operation, and the differences were significant (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the other time points and other indicators when compared with healthy group (P>0.05). In the study group, the flexion and extension angles and internal and external rotation angles at 6 and 12 months after operation were significantly greater than those at 3 months after operation (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the other indicators at other time points (P>0.05). There was a significant difference in flexion and extension angle between the study group and the control group at 6 months after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference of the indicators between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with conventional surgery, ACL reconstruction assisted by personalized femoral positioner based on ADC design can help patients achieve more satisfactory early postoperative kinematic results, and three-dimensional kinematic analysis can more objectively and dynamically evaluate the postoperative recovery of knee joint.