Cargando…
A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries
BACKGROUND: Injury to the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee requires reconstruction to restore coronal and rotary stability. Two commonly used procedures are the Arciero reconstruction technique (ART) and the LaPrade reconstruction technique (LRT). To the authors’ knowledge, these techniques h...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466468/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31019985 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967119838251 |
_version_ | 1783411116154552320 |
---|---|
author | Treme, Gehron P. Salas, Christina Ortiz, Gabriel Gill, George Keith Johnson, Paul J. Menzer, Heather Richter, Dustin L. Qeadan, Fares Wascher, Daniel C. Schenck, Robert C. |
author_facet | Treme, Gehron P. Salas, Christina Ortiz, Gabriel Gill, George Keith Johnson, Paul J. Menzer, Heather Richter, Dustin L. Qeadan, Fares Wascher, Daniel C. Schenck, Robert C. |
author_sort | Treme, Gehron P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Injury to the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee requires reconstruction to restore coronal and rotary stability. Two commonly used procedures are the Arciero reconstruction technique (ART) and the LaPrade reconstruction technique (LRT). To the authors’ knowledge, these techniques have not been biomechanically compared against one another. PURPOSE: To identify if one of these reconstruction techniques better restores stability to a PLC-deficient knee and if concomitant injury to the proximal tibiofibular joint or anterior cruciate ligament affects these results. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight matched-paired cadaveric specimens from the midfemur to toes were used. Each specimen was tested in 4 phases: intact PLC (phase 1), PLC sectioned (phase 2), PLC reconstructed (ART or LRT) (phase 3), and tibiofibular (phase 4A) or anterior cruciate ligament (phase 4B) sectioning with PLC reconstructed. Varus angulation and external rotation at 0º, 20º, 30º, 60º, and 90º of knee flexion were quantified at each phase. RESULTS: In phase 3, both reconstructions were effective at restoring laxity back to the intact state. However, in phase 4A, both reconstructions were ineffective at stabilizing the joint owing to tibiofibular instability. In phase 4B, both reconstructions had the potential to restrict varus angulation motion. There were no statistically significant differences found between reconstruction techniques for varus angulation or external rotation at any degree of flexion in phase 3 or 4. CONCLUSION: The LRT and ART are equally effective at restoring stability to knees with PLC injuries. Neither reconstruction technique fully restores stability to knees with combined PLC and proximal tibiofibular joint injuries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given these findings, surgeons may select their reconstruction technique based on their experience and training and the specific needs of their patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6466468 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64664682019-04-24 A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries Treme, Gehron P. Salas, Christina Ortiz, Gabriel Gill, George Keith Johnson, Paul J. Menzer, Heather Richter, Dustin L. Qeadan, Fares Wascher, Daniel C. Schenck, Robert C. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Injury to the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee requires reconstruction to restore coronal and rotary stability. Two commonly used procedures are the Arciero reconstruction technique (ART) and the LaPrade reconstruction technique (LRT). To the authors’ knowledge, these techniques have not been biomechanically compared against one another. PURPOSE: To identify if one of these reconstruction techniques better restores stability to a PLC-deficient knee and if concomitant injury to the proximal tibiofibular joint or anterior cruciate ligament affects these results. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight matched-paired cadaveric specimens from the midfemur to toes were used. Each specimen was tested in 4 phases: intact PLC (phase 1), PLC sectioned (phase 2), PLC reconstructed (ART or LRT) (phase 3), and tibiofibular (phase 4A) or anterior cruciate ligament (phase 4B) sectioning with PLC reconstructed. Varus angulation and external rotation at 0º, 20º, 30º, 60º, and 90º of knee flexion were quantified at each phase. RESULTS: In phase 3, both reconstructions were effective at restoring laxity back to the intact state. However, in phase 4A, both reconstructions were ineffective at stabilizing the joint owing to tibiofibular instability. In phase 4B, both reconstructions had the potential to restrict varus angulation motion. There were no statistically significant differences found between reconstruction techniques for varus angulation or external rotation at any degree of flexion in phase 3 or 4. CONCLUSION: The LRT and ART are equally effective at restoring stability to knees with PLC injuries. Neither reconstruction technique fully restores stability to knees with combined PLC and proximal tibiofibular joint injuries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given these findings, surgeons may select their reconstruction technique based on their experience and training and the specific needs of their patients. SAGE Publications 2019-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6466468/ /pubmed/31019985 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967119838251 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Article Treme, Gehron P. Salas, Christina Ortiz, Gabriel Gill, George Keith Johnson, Paul J. Menzer, Heather Richter, Dustin L. Qeadan, Fares Wascher, Daniel C. Schenck, Robert C. A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries |
title | A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction
for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries |
title_full | A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction
for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries |
title_fullStr | A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction
for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries |
title_full_unstemmed | A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction
for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries |
title_short | A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction
for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries |
title_sort | biomechanical comparison of the arciero and laprade reconstruction
for posterolateral corner knee injuries |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466468/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31019985 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967119838251 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tremegehronp abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT salaschristina abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT ortizgabriel abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT gillgeorgekeith abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT johnsonpaulj abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT menzerheather abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT richterdustinl abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT qeadanfares abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT wascherdanielc abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT schenckrobertc abiomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT tremegehronp biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT salaschristina biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT ortizgabriel biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT gillgeorgekeith biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT johnsonpaulj biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT menzerheather biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT richterdustinl biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT qeadanfares biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT wascherdanielc biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries AT schenckrobertc biomechanicalcomparisonofthearcieroandlapradereconstructionforposterolateralcornerkneeinjuries |