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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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