Biomechanical Analysis of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Aperture Femoral Fixation

被引:4
|
作者
Mutnal, Amar [1 ]
Leo, Brian M. [2 ]
Vargas, Luis [3 ]
Colbrunn, Robb W. [4 ]
Butler, Robert S. [5 ]
Uribe, John W. [3 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[2] Cleveland Clin Florida, Dept Orthoped Surg Sports Hlth, Weston, FL 33331 USA
[3] UHZ Sports Med Inst, Coral Gables, FL USA
[4] Cleveland Clin, Lerner Res Inst, Dept Biomed Engn, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[5] Cleveland Clin, Dept Quantitat Hlth Sci, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
关键词
SIMULATED MUSCLE LOADS; ARTHROSCOPIC SINGLE-BUNDLE; TIBIAL INLAY; KNEE-JOINT; DEFICIENCY; TRANSLATION; INJURIES; ROTATION; FLEXION; PCL;
D O I
10.3928/01477447-20150105-50
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
The goal of this study was to determine whether single-tunnel-double-bundle-equivalent posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction using an aperture femoral fixation device better replicated normal knee kinematics than single-bundle reconstruction. Eight fresh-frozen human cadaver knees underwent arthroscopically assisted PCL reconstruction and were examined with a robotic testing system to assess knee joint kinematics under combinations of applied internal, neutral, and external rotational tibial torque and anteroposterior translational forces at 0 degrees, 30 degrees, 60 degrees, 90 degrees, and 120 degrees flexion. Three conditions were tested: (1) intact PCL; (2) single-tunnel PCL reconstruction with anterolateral and posteromedial bundle fixation at 90 degrees/90 degrees (single bundle); and (3) 90 degrees/0 degrees (double-bundle equivalent), respectively. Posterior tibial translation was the primary outcome measure. Compared with the intact knee, double-bundle-equivalent reconstruction under external tibial torque allowed greater posterior translation across the flexion arc as a whole (P=.025) and at 30 degrees flexion (P=.027) when results were stratified by flexion angle. No other kinematic differences were found with single-bundle or double-bundle-equivalent fixation, including mediolateral translation and both coupled and isolated tibial rotation (P>.05). Single-bundle PCL reconstruction closely approximated native knee rotational and translational kinematics, whereas double-bundle-equivalent reconstruction permitted increased posterior translation with applied external tibial torque, particularly at lower flexion angles. Single-bundle PCL reconstruction provides knee stability similar to the intact condition, making it a practical alternative to conventional double-bundle PCL reconstruction. The authors found that double-bundle-equivalent reconstruction provided no advantage to justify its clinical use.
引用
收藏
页码:9 / 16
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Biomechanical analysis of a posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction -: Deficiency of the posterolateral structures as a cause of graft failure
    Harner, CD
    Vogrin, TM
    Höher, J
    Ma, CB
    Woo, SLY
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2000, 28 (01): : 32 - 39
  • [42] Biomechanical analysis of a combined double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner reconstruction
    Sekiya, JK
    Haemmerle, MJ
    Stabile, KJ
    Vogrin, TM
    Harner, CD
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2005, 33 (03): : 360 - 369
  • [43] Biomechanical comparisons of current suspensory fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Cheng, Jin
    Paluvadi, Siddhartha Venkata
    Lee, SungJae
    Yoo, SeungJin
    Song, Eun-Kyoo
    Seon, Jong-Keun
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2018, 42 (06) : 1291 - 1296
  • [44] Transtibial tubercle fixation without hardware for anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A new technique
    Pasque, CB
    de la Garza, S
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2004, 20 (06): : 164 - 170
  • [45] Biomechanical comparisons of current suspensory fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Jin Cheng
    Siddhartha Venkata Paluvadi
    SungJae Lee
    SeungJin Yoo
    Eun-Kyoo Song
    Jong-Keun Seon
    International Orthopaedics, 2018, 42 : 1291 - 1296
  • [46] Aperture fixation in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament double-bundle reconstruction
    Brucker, Peter U.
    Lorenz, Stephan
    Imhoff, Andreas B.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2006, 22 (11): : 1250.e1 - 1250.e6
  • [47] Testing for isometry during reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament - Anatomic and biomechanical considerations
    Covey, DC
    Sapega, AA
    Sherman, GM
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 1996, 24 (06): : 740 - 746
  • [48] Biomechanical Evaluation of an Anatomic Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Tsukada, Harehiko
    Ishibashi, Yasuyuki
    Tsuda, Eiichi
    Fukuda, Akira
    Yamamoto, Yuji
    Toh, Satoshi
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2012, 28 (02): : 264 - 271
  • [49] Posterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Fixation Angles, Part 2 Biomechanical Evaluation for Anatomic Double-Bundle Reconstruction
    Kennedy, Nicholas I.
    LaPrade, Robert F.
    Goldsmith, Mary T.
    Faucett, Scott C.
    Rasmussen, Matthew T.
    Coatney, Garrett A.
    Engebretsen, Lars
    Wijdicks, Coen A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (10): : 2346 - 2355
  • [50] Posterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Fixation Angles, Part 1 Biomechanical Evaluation for Anatomic Single-Bundle Reconstruction
    Kennedy, Nicholas I.
    LaPrade, Robert F.
    Goldsmith, Mary T.
    Faucett, Scott C.
    Rasmussen, Matthew T.
    Coatney, Garrett A.
    Engebretsen, Lars
    Wijdicks, Coen A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (10): : 2338 - 2345