Abstract:BackgroundFor ACL reconstruction, the minimum length of the femoral tunnel and the flexor tendon graft length needed within the tunnel for proper integration have not been defined. The aim of this study was to assess whether a short tunnel is a risk factor for poor prognosis and re-rupture by comparing the outcomes of patients with short femoral tunnels to those of patients with longer tunnels.Materials and methodsA retrospective observational study of 80 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using flexor … Show more
“…This theoretical risk of inadequate tunnel length bears the potential for clinical relevance, especially when deep flexion is unable to be achieved because of a patient’s body habitus, musculature, or intrinsic flexibility. While this suggests a potential technical advantage with the use of AM-FR, a previous study by Guglielmetti et al 10 did not observe a difference in rerupture rates between patients with <1.5 cm versus >2.5 cm of graft within the femoral tunnel. The theoretical risk of insufficient tunnel size has also not been investigated in clinical studies comparing AM-FR and AM-RR to determine the clinical importance of these suggested differences.…”
Background: Recent studies have suggested that femoral tunnel drilling during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with the use of a flexible reaming system through a standard anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different tunnel geometry compared with a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AM-RR). Purpose: To summarize radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes from available studies that directly compared the use of AM-FR versus AM-RR for independent femoral tunnel creation during ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Web of Science databases to identify all studies that directly compared radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes between the use of AM-FR and AM-RR. The literature search, data recording, and methodological quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The outcomes analyzed included resultant ACL graft positioning and graft bending angle; femoral tunnel positioning, aperture morphology, length, and widening; posterior wall breakage; and distance from various posterolateral knee structures. Results: A total of 13 studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. There was no difference in femoral tunnel aperture location between techniques. There were conflicting findings among studies regarding which technique resulted in a more acute graft bending angle. One study reported greater femoral tunnel widening upon follow-up with the use of AM-FR. AM-FR produced longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than did AM-RR. The difference in tunnel length was significant and more prominent in lesser degrees of knee flexion. With AM-FR, femoral tunnels were farther from the lateral collateral ligament and peroneal nerve, and 1 of 5 studies had fewer reports of posterior wall breakage. There has been no literature comparing the clinical or functional outcomes of these techniques. Conclusion: Although no clinical studies exist comparing AM-FR and AM-RR for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR, both systems allow for reproducible positioning of an anatomic femoral tunnel aperture. The use of AM-FR results in longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than using AM-RR, with exit points on the lateral femur that are different but safe. Surgeons should be aware of the technical differences with each method; however, further study is needed to identify any clinically important difference that results.
“…This theoretical risk of inadequate tunnel length bears the potential for clinical relevance, especially when deep flexion is unable to be achieved because of a patient’s body habitus, musculature, or intrinsic flexibility. While this suggests a potential technical advantage with the use of AM-FR, a previous study by Guglielmetti et al 10 did not observe a difference in rerupture rates between patients with <1.5 cm versus >2.5 cm of graft within the femoral tunnel. The theoretical risk of insufficient tunnel size has also not been investigated in clinical studies comparing AM-FR and AM-RR to determine the clinical importance of these suggested differences.…”
Background: Recent studies have suggested that femoral tunnel drilling during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with the use of a flexible reaming system through a standard anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different tunnel geometry compared with a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AM-RR). Purpose: To summarize radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes from available studies that directly compared the use of AM-FR versus AM-RR for independent femoral tunnel creation during ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Web of Science databases to identify all studies that directly compared radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes between the use of AM-FR and AM-RR. The literature search, data recording, and methodological quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The outcomes analyzed included resultant ACL graft positioning and graft bending angle; femoral tunnel positioning, aperture morphology, length, and widening; posterior wall breakage; and distance from various posterolateral knee structures. Results: A total of 13 studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. There was no difference in femoral tunnel aperture location between techniques. There were conflicting findings among studies regarding which technique resulted in a more acute graft bending angle. One study reported greater femoral tunnel widening upon follow-up with the use of AM-FR. AM-FR produced longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than did AM-RR. The difference in tunnel length was significant and more prominent in lesser degrees of knee flexion. With AM-FR, femoral tunnels were farther from the lateral collateral ligament and peroneal nerve, and 1 of 5 studies had fewer reports of posterior wall breakage. There has been no literature comparing the clinical or functional outcomes of these techniques. Conclusion: Although no clinical studies exist comparing AM-FR and AM-RR for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR, both systems allow for reproducible positioning of an anatomic femoral tunnel aperture. The use of AM-FR results in longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than using AM-RR, with exit points on the lateral femur that are different but safe. Surgeons should be aware of the technical differences with each method; however, further study is needed to identify any clinically important difference that results.
“…The changes in tunnel length among the various ASRs were about 1 mm, and the shortest tunnel length was 27.22 mm. Existing studies found that the BioMed Research International minimum required tunnel length was 25 mm for successful reconstruction surgery [35,39]. Thus, the ASR of the distal femur might not be an essential factor for determining adequate tunnel length.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For successful ACL reconstruction, many researchers have focused on the optimal tunnel position with tunnelling technique through biomechanical simulations [ 6 , 25 , 34 , 35 ]. However, anatomical characteristics of the knee were not considered in these studies.…”
We analyzed tunnel length, graft bending angle, and stress of the graft according to tunnel entry position and aspect ratio (ASR: ratio of anteroposterior depth to mediolateral width) of the articular surface for the distal femur during single-bundle outside-in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) surgery. We performed multiflexible body dynamic analyses with four ASR (98, 105, 111, and 117%) knee models. The various ASRs were associated with approximately 1 mm changes in tunnel length. The graft bending angle increased when the entry point was far from the lateral epicondyle and was larger when the ASR was smaller. The graft was at maximum stress, 117% ASR, when the tunnel entry point was near the lateral epicondyle. The maximum stress value at a 5 mm distance from the lateral epicondyle was 3.5 times higher than the 15 mm entry position, and the cases set to 111% and 105% ASR showed 1.9 times higher stress values when at a 5 mm distance compared with a 15 mm distance. In the case set at 98% ASR, the low-stress value showed a without-distance difference from the lateral epicondyle. Our results suggest that there is no relationship between the ASR and femoral tunnel length. A smaller ASR causes a higher graft bending angle, and a larger ASR causes greater stress in the graft.
“…However, although many studies suggest a minimum of 20 mm of soft‐tissue graft within the tunnel, a recent study by Mariscalco et al (for the MOON cohort) showed no difference in patient‐reported outcome measures with hamstring reconstructions (using a suspensory device) in tunnels measuring 14–35 mm [25]. Further, Guglielmatti et al found no increase in graft rupture with short femoral tunnels [9]. Therefore, the benefit of such a small increase may not exist for hamstring reconstructions and is less relevant to other graft choices requiring tunnel length of only 20–25 mm.…”
Purpose
The hyperflexion required for femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can be challenging in patients with increased body habitus or musculature. Whilst allowing femoral tunnel creation without hyperflexion, additional benefits of flexible reamers have been proposed in terms of tunnel dimensions. The purpose of this study was to examine whether these theoretical benefits are seen in a clinical study.
Methods
Fifty adult patients (with isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture) were randomised to reconstruction with either flexible or rigid femoral reamers. Femoral tunnel drilling was performed at 100° flexion (flexible system) or maximal hyperflexion (rigid system). Otherwise, the procedure was standardised. Femoral tunnel measurements were performed by a consultant musculoskeletal radiologist who was blinded to the method of femoral drilling. Tunnel position, length and angles (axial and coronal) were measured alongside aperture shape and exit point using three‐dimensional computed tomography 3–6 months post‐operatively.
Results
With no difference in tunnel position, tunnel length was found to increase with the use of the flexible system (37.8 ± 3.7 vs 35.0 ± 4.4 mm; p = 0.024). In addition, the exit point and fixation device were more anterior on the lateral femur using the flexible reamers (p = 0.016). No difference was seen in either tunnel angles or aperture shape. One case of incomplete posterior blow‐out was seen in each of the study groups.
Conclusions
This comparative study shows that flexible reamers can reproduce a desired femoral tunnel position with only small improvements of no clinical relevance. As this can be achieved without hyperflexing the knee, these systems can be used for all patients (even when hyperflexion is a challenge).
Level of evidence
I.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.