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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neri, Thomas, Dabirrahmani, Dane, Beach, Aaron, Putnis, Sven, Oshima, Takeshi, Cadman, Joseph, Coolican, Myles, Fritsch, Brett, Devitt, Brian, Appleyard, Richard, Parker, David
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