Cargando…

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Transtibial vs Transportal radiographic evaluation on femoral and tibial tunnel position

INTRODUCTION: The most recent advances in ACL reconstruction try to reproduce the anatomic femoral and tibial footprints as close as possible. Creating independent tunnels would allow an optimal of the entry point and the femoral tunnel obliquity, and together with an adequate reamer diameter they w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arcuri, Francisco, Barclay, Fernando, Nacul, Ivan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595864/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967114S00231
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The most recent advances in ACL reconstruction try to reproduce the anatomic femoral and tibial footprints as close as possible. Creating independent tunnels would allow an optimal of the entry point and the femoral tunnel obliquity, and together with an adequate reamer diameter they wouldreproduce with greater certainty the anatomy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiographic parameters of the femoral and tibial tunnel positions in two groups of patients, one operated with a transtibial and other with transportal anatomic techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2012 to December 2013, 59 patients with a primary ACL reconstruction divided in two groups, a trans tibial technique (TT), 19 patients, and an transportal one (TP) with 40 patients were prospectively evaluated with AP and lateral X-rays. The femoral tunnel angle, the insertion site with respect of the Blumensaat line, the trans osseous distance, the tibial tunnel position as a percentage of the tibial plateau in the AP and lateral views. And finally the tibial tunnel angle in the AP and Lateral views. RESULTS: The femoral tunnel angle was in the TP group of 45,92º and in the TT one 24,53º, p 0,002. The insertion site percentage of the Blumensaat line was of 20,96 in TP and 20,74 in the TT, p 0,681.Trans osseous distance was in the TP of 3,43 cm and in the TT of 4,79 cm, p <0,000. The tibial tunnel position as a percentage in the AP tibial plateau was of 44,35 in TP and of 40,80 TT with a p of 0,076. The tibial tunnel position as a percentage of the lateral tibial plateau was of 28,70 in TP and 34,53 in TT with a p 0,367. Tibial tunnel angle in the AP was of 73,48º in TP and 62,81 in TT with a p of 0,002, and in the lateral plateau of 114,69º in TP and 112,79º in TT with a p of 0,427. CONCLUSION: It is possible to create tibial and femoral tunnel in optimal positions but not equal between both groups. Creating independent tunnels allow a more anterior and vertical tibial tunnel allowing a better coverage of the tibial footprint. A transportal femoral tunnel would allow a better inclination angle and a lesser trans-osseous distance, technical details that would allow a better coverage of the femoral footprint.