Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 May;26(5):1343-1348. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4659-7. Epub 2017 Jul 29.

Anatomic and non-anatomic anterior cruciate ligament posterolateral bundle augmentation affects graft function.

Author information

1
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3471 Fifth Avenue, 1010 Kaufmann Building, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
2
Department of Orthopedics, Via Hospital Group, Istanbul, Turkey.
3
Department of Orthopedics, Acibadem Hospital Group, Mugla, Turkey.
4
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
5
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
6
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3471 Fifth Avenue, 1010 Kaufmann Building, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. ffu@upmc.edu.
7
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. ffu@upmc.edu.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study is to compare knee laxity and graft function (tissue force) between anatomic and non-anatomic posterolateral (PL) bundle augmentation.

METHODS:

Twelve (n = 12) fresh-frozen mature, unpaired porcine knees were tested using a robotic testing system. Four knee states were compared: (a) intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), (b) deficient PL and intermediate bundles, (c) anatomic PL augmentation, and (d) non-anatomic PL augmentation. Anterior tibial translation (ATT), internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER), and the in situ tissue force were measured under an 89.0-N anterior tibial load and 4.0-N m internal and external tibial torques.

RESULTS:

Both anatomic and non-anatomic PL augmentation restored the ER, IR, and ATT of the intact knee at all knee flexion angles (n.s.). Both anatomic and non-anatomic PL augmentation restored the in situ tissue force of the ACL during ER and IR loading and ATT loading at all knee flexion angles except at 60° of knee flexion, where the non-anatomic PL augmentation did not restore the in situ tissue force of the ACL during external rotation loading and the anatomic PL augmentation did not restore the in situ tissue force of the ACL during IR loading. Furthermore, there were no differences in ATT, IR, ER, and in situ tissue force under anterior tibial loading, IR and ER loading between the two reconstruction groups.

CONCLUSION:

There were no significant differences between anatomic and non-anatomic PL augmentation using the porcine knee model.

KEYWORDS:

Anatomic ACL reconstruction; Augmentation; Porcine; Posterolateral bundle; Rotational stability

PMID:
28756466
DOI:
10.1007/s00167-017-4659-7
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center