Cargando…
A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
BACKGROUND: None of the anterolateral procedures used in combination with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) to control rotational laxity have demonstrated superiority. The objective was to compare the capacity of the main anterolateral procedures associated with ACLR to restore intact knee kinematics in cas...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8822053/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00002 |
_version_ | 1784646529473052672 |
---|---|
author | Neri, Thomas Dabirrahmani, Dane Beach, Aaron Putnis, Sven Oshima, Takeshi Cadman, Joseph Coolican, Myles Fritsch, Brett Devitt, Brian Appleyard, Richard Parker, David |
author_facet | Neri, Thomas Dabirrahmani, Dane Beach, Aaron Putnis, Sven Oshima, Takeshi Cadman, Joseph Coolican, Myles Fritsch, Brett Devitt, Brian Appleyard, Richard Parker, David |
author_sort | Neri, Thomas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: None of the anterolateral procedures used in combination with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) to control rotational laxity have demonstrated superiority. The objective was to compare the capacity of the main anterolateral procedures associated with ACLR to restore intact knee kinematics in case of combined ACL and anterolateral structure injury. METHODS: The complete kinematics of 10 cadaveric knees, previously modelled by TDM, were recorded using a 3D Motion Analysis® system. Intact knee kinematics, including internal rotation (IR) of the tibial and anterior-posterior (AP) laxity at 30 and 90° flexion were initially assessed, followed by a sequential section of the ACL and anterolateral complex (ALC) (anterolateral ligament (ALL), ALL capsule and Kaplan fibers). After the ACLR, 5 anterolateral procedures were performed consecutively on the same knee: ALLR; Ellison; Deep Lemaire; Superficial Lemaire; and MacIntosh. The last three procedures were randomized. For each procedure, the graft was fixed in neutral rotation at 30° flexion with a tension of 20 N. RESULTS: ACLR alone did not restore overall knee kinematics when there was an ACL+ALC injury, and resulted in residual rotational laxity of the tibia (p > 0.001). Only the ALLR (p=0.262) and modified Ellison (p=0.081) procedures restored normal global IR kinematics. Superficial/deep Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures resulted in over-constrained kinematic profiles (respectively: p=0.013, p=0.018 and p=0.030). In terms of ACLR, the addition of an anterolateral procedure did not provide additional control over AP translation at 30 and 90° (p > 0.05), exception for the surficial Lemaire procedure at 90° (p = 0.032). DISCUSSION: ACLR alone was not sufficient to restore normal kinematics in ACL and ALC-deficient knees. ALLR and Ellison procedures restored physiological kinematics, unlike the MacIntosh procedure which caused additional control of IR and thereby induced over-constraint. CONCLUSION: The addition of ALLR or the modified Ellison procedure, which restore intrinsic kinematics, might be useful during primary ACL reconstruction to avoid repeated injury without a risk of over-constraint. The superficial/deep Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures resulted in over-constrained kinetics but provided additional rotation control that could be useful in revision surgery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8822053 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88220532022-02-18 A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Neri, Thomas Dabirrahmani, Dane Beach, Aaron Putnis, Sven Oshima, Takeshi Cadman, Joseph Coolican, Myles Fritsch, Brett Devitt, Brian Appleyard, Richard Parker, David Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: None of the anterolateral procedures used in combination with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) to control rotational laxity have demonstrated superiority. The objective was to compare the capacity of the main anterolateral procedures associated with ACLR to restore intact knee kinematics in case of combined ACL and anterolateral structure injury. METHODS: The complete kinematics of 10 cadaveric knees, previously modelled by TDM, were recorded using a 3D Motion Analysis® system. Intact knee kinematics, including internal rotation (IR) of the tibial and anterior-posterior (AP) laxity at 30 and 90° flexion were initially assessed, followed by a sequential section of the ACL and anterolateral complex (ALC) (anterolateral ligament (ALL), ALL capsule and Kaplan fibers). After the ACLR, 5 anterolateral procedures were performed consecutively on the same knee: ALLR; Ellison; Deep Lemaire; Superficial Lemaire; and MacIntosh. The last three procedures were randomized. For each procedure, the graft was fixed in neutral rotation at 30° flexion with a tension of 20 N. RESULTS: ACLR alone did not restore overall knee kinematics when there was an ACL+ALC injury, and resulted in residual rotational laxity of the tibia (p > 0.001). Only the ALLR (p=0.262) and modified Ellison (p=0.081) procedures restored normal global IR kinematics. Superficial/deep Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures resulted in over-constrained kinematic profiles (respectively: p=0.013, p=0.018 and p=0.030). In terms of ACLR, the addition of an anterolateral procedure did not provide additional control over AP translation at 30 and 90° (p > 0.05), exception for the surficial Lemaire procedure at 90° (p = 0.032). DISCUSSION: ACLR alone was not sufficient to restore normal kinematics in ACL and ALC-deficient knees. ALLR and Ellison procedures restored physiological kinematics, unlike the MacIntosh procedure which caused additional control of IR and thereby induced over-constraint. CONCLUSION: The addition of ALLR or the modified Ellison procedure, which restore intrinsic kinematics, might be useful during primary ACL reconstruction to avoid repeated injury without a risk of over-constraint. The superficial/deep Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures resulted in over-constrained kinetics but provided additional rotation control that could be useful in revision surgery. SAGE Publications 2020-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8822053/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00002 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions. |
spellingShingle | Article Neri, Thomas Dabirrahmani, Dane Beach, Aaron Putnis, Sven Oshima, Takeshi Cadman, Joseph Coolican, Myles Fritsch, Brett Devitt, Brian Appleyard, Richard Parker, David A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title | A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_full | A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_fullStr | A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_full_unstemmed | A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_short | A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_sort | biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8822053/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nerithomas abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT dabirrahmanidane abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT beachaaron abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT putnissven abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT oshimatakeshi abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT cadmanjoseph abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT coolicanmyles abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT fritschbrett abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT devittbrian abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT appleyardrichard abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT parkerdavid abiomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT nerithomas biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT dabirrahmanidane biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT beachaaron biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT putnissven biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT oshimatakeshi biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT cadmanjoseph biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT coolicanmyles biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT fritschbrett biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT devittbrian biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT appleyardrichard biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT parkerdavid biomechanicalcomparisonofthemainanterolateralproceduresusedincombinationwithanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction |