ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction via tibial tunnel made by three-portal technique.MethodsBetween July 2015 and December 2016, 45 patients with ACL ruptures were treated. There were 29 males and 16 females with an average age of 27.5 years (range, 18-42 years). There were 18 cases in the left side and 27 cases in the right side. There were 28 cases of sports injuries, 13 cases of traffic accidents, and 4 cases of other injuries. The average time from injury to operation was 21.6 days (range, 5-36 days). There were 25 cases of simple ACL injury and 20 cases of ACL complicated with medial collateral ligament, medial meniscus or lateral meniscus injuries. The Lachman tests of all patients were positive. The pivot shift tests of all patients were positive with grade Ⅰ in 27 cases, grade Ⅱ in 13 cases, and grade Ⅲ in 5 cases. The preoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 70.28±6.12, and the Lysholm score was 63.27±7.62. All patients underwent arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction, and the tibial tunnel was created through the anterolateral, high anteromedial, and additional low anteromedial approaches.ResultsAll incisions healed by the first intention. All patients were followed up 18.7 months on average (range, 14-32 months). The three-dimensional CT at 3 days after operation showed that the tibial tunnel positions were accurate and the middle points were located in the 36.81%-43.35% of tibial plateau on sagittal plane. The medial borders of the tibial tunnel on coronal plane were located at the lateral to the medial eminence of the tibia. There were 3 cases of thrombosis of intermuscular vein of lower limbs, 2 cases of joint swelling and pain, and 3 cases of stiffness of knee joint. At last follow-up, the Lachman tests of all patients were negative and the pivot shift test were negative in 42 patients and positive in 3 patients (grade Ⅰ). The IKDC score (92.59±4.36) and Lysholm score (93.15±5.53) were significantly higher than preoperative scores (t=11.35, P=0.00; t=12.27, P=0.00).ConclusionArthroscopic ACL reconstruction via tibial tunnel made by three-portal technique, which was simple and accurate, can obtain the satisfactory function of the knee in the early stage after operation.
Objective To compare the intraoperative effects of computer navigation-assisted versus simple arthroscopic reconstruction of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial tunnel. Methods The clinical data of 73 patients with PCL tears who were admitted between June 2021 and June 2022 and met the selection criteria were retrospectively analysed, of whom 34 cases underwent PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction with navigation-assisted arthroscopy (navigation group) and 39 cases underwent PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction with arthroscopy alone (control group). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups, including gender, age, body mass index, side of injury, time from injury to surgery, preoperative posterior drawer test, knee range of motion (ROM), Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score between the two groups (P>0.05). The perioperative indicators (operation time and number of guide wire drillings) were recorded and compared between the two groups. The angle between the graft and the tibial tunnel and the exit positions of the tibial tunnel in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes respectively were measured on MRI at 1 day after operation. The knee ROM, Tegner score, Lysholm score, and IKDC score were evaluated before operation and at last follow-up. Results The operation time in the navigation group was shorter than that in the control group, and the number of intraoperative guide wire drillings was less than that in the control group, the differences were significant (P<0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-17 months, with an average of 12.8 months. There was no perioperative complications such as vascular and nerve damage, deep venous thrombosis and infection of lower extremity. During the follow-up, there was no re-injuries in either group and no revision was required. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the exit positions of the tibial tunnel in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes between the two groups (P>0.05), but the angle between the graft and the tibial tunnel was significantly greater in the navigation group than in the control group (P<0.05). At last follow-up, 30, 3, 1 and 0 cases were rated as negative, 1+, 2+, and 3+ of posterior drawer test in the navigation group and 33, 5, 1, and 0 cases in the control group, respectively, which significantly improved when compared with the preoperative values (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, ROM, Tegner score, Lysholm score, and IKDC score of the knee joint significantly improved in both groups when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the difference in preoperative and postoperative indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionComputer-navigated arthroscopic PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction can quickly and accurately prepare tunnels with good location and orientation, with postoperative functional scores comparable to arthroscopic PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction alone.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between lower tibial tunnel placement combined with internal tension relieving suture and simple lower tibial tunnel placement for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. MethodsThe clinical data of 83 patients with simple PCL injury who met the selection criteria between January 2014 and February 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 44 patients underwent PCL reconstruction through lower tibial tunnel placement combined with internal tension relieving suture (tension relieving suture group), and 39 patients underwent PCL reconstruction through simple lower tibial tunnel placement (control group). Baseline characteristics, including gender, age, body mass index, side of injury, cause of injury, preoperative side-to-side difference (SSD) in posterior tibial translation, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, knee range of motion (ROM), Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (including symptom, daily activities, and knee function scores) were compared between the two groups, showing no significant difference (P>0.05). The operation time and intraoperative blood loss were recorded and compared between the two groups. The effectiveness was evaluated by Lysholm score, IKDC scores, Tegner score, VAS score, knee ROM, SSD in posterior tibial translation before operation and at last follow-up, the patient satisfaction at last follow-up, and the postoperative graft recovery was evaluated by MRI. ResultsThere was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-60 months, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Postoperative MRI showed that the graft was in good condition, and the reconstructed PCL graft had good signal, continuity, and tension. During the follow-up, there was no complication such as re-rupture or donor site discomfort in both groups. At last follow-up, the Lysholm score, IKDC scores, Tegner score, VAS score, knee ROM, and SSD in posterior tibial translation significantly improved in both groups when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). The changes of Lysholm score, Tegner score, IKDC knee symptom score, and SSD in posterior tibial translation between pre- and post-operation were significantly superior in the tension relieving suture group compared to the control group (P<0.05). However, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the changes of VAS score, knee ROM, IKDC daily activities score or knee function score between pre- and post-operation, and the satisfaction score (P>0.05). ConclusionLower tibial tunnel placement combined with internal tension relieving suture PCL reconstruction represents a more effective surgical approach for improving postoperative laxity of PCL and knee function recovery comparing to simple lower tibial tunnel placement PCL reconstruction.
Objective To review the research on tibial tunnel positioning techniques in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction to provide references for clinical practice. MethodsRelevant literature on tibial tunnel positioning techniques in PCL reconstruction were extensively reviewed, and summarized. Their advantages, disadvantages, and clinical outcomes were compared. ResultsThe position of the tibial tunnel is crucial to the prognosis of PCL reconstruction. The commonly used tibial tunnel positioning techniques include transtibial anteromedial anatomical reconstruction, transtibial anterolateral anatomical reconstruction, Inlay technique, and modified tibial low tunnel reconstruction. Recent studies have shown that there is no significant difference in clinical function scores between anterolateral and anteromedial reconstructions, but the former is associated with greater postoperative posterior tibial translation, which may lead to poor knee joint stability in the long-term follow-up. Compared with other techniques, the Inlay technique is more invasive and is generally not the first clinical choice. In contrast to anteromedial reconstruction, modified tibial low tunnel reconstruction can reduce graft wear. But, studies have demonstrated no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the two techniques. In addition, the modified tibial low tunnel reconstruction is a non-anatomical reconstruction method. Studies have indicated that the degree of posterior tibial translation after non-anatomical reconstructions is greater than that after anatomical reconstruction. Whether the knee joint stability can be guaranteed after non-anatomical reconstruction remains unclear, so the advantages of this technique need to be further investigated. Conclusion Different tibial positioning techniques have their own merits and demerits. At present, there is no clear evidence that any technique has absolute advantages. Surgeons should make a choice based on their own specific conditions and the patient’s specific situation.
Objective To investigate the impact of tibial tunnel position on postoperative knee function and stability in patients undergoing artificial posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent single knee artificial PCL reconstruction between January 2018 and September 2024 and met the inclusion criteria. Based on postoperative three-dimensional (3D)-CT measurements of the tibial tunnel position, the patients were allocated into a low tunnel group (n=35) and a high tunnel group (n=30). Except for gender, there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05) in age, body mass index, injury side, time from injury to operation, preoperative posterior drawer test grade, knee range of motion (ROM), Tegner score, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, or the composition ratio of combined meniscus and cartilage injuries. The tibial tunnel positions were compared. Postoperative recovery of knee function was evaluated using the IKDC score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and knee ROM. The differences between pre- and post-operative values (change values) for these indicators were calculated and compared between groups. Posterior knee stability was assessed using the posterior drawer test and the side-to-side difference (SSD) in tibial posterior translation measured on stress radiographs. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Postoperative complications such as graft failure were recorded. Results The relative proximal-distal position of the tibial tunnel was significantly lower in the low tunnel group than in the high tunnel group (P<0.05), while no significant difference was found in the relative medial-lateral position between groups (P>0.05). All operations were successfully completed, and incisions healed by first intention. All patients were followed up 12-86 months, with a median follow-up of 23.0 months. The low tunnel group demonstrated superior posterior stability compared to the high tunnel group, showing a significantly lower SSD and lower posterior drawer test grade at last follow-up (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the change value in the Tegner score and the VAS score for patient satisfaction were significantly higher in the low tunnel group than in the high tunnel group (P<0.05). No significant difference was found between groups in the change values for IKDC score, Lysholm score, or knee ROM (P>0.05). Two patients in the high tunnel group underwent revision surgery due to graft failure, whereas no such adverse events occurred in the low tunnel group. The difference in the incidence of complications between groups was not significant (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with a high tibial tunnel, the low tibial tunnel technique can effectively reduce the graft’s turning angle at the proximal tibia and lower the risk of graft failure, thereby significantly improving posterior knee stability and function recovery after artificial PCL reconstruction.