Background: Although the literature has extensively discussed impingement after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the definition of impingement is vague, and impingement pressure has not been well investigated as a function of tunnel position.
Purpose: To determine the amount of impingement pressure between the ACL and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and between the ACL and notch roof in the native ACL, the single-bundle ACL reconstruction with different tunnel placements, and the anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction.
Study design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Fifteen fresh-frozen nonpaired human cadaver knees were used. In each knee, different femoral and tibial tunnels were created, which allowed different graft placements. A single graft was placed in 3 positions: tibial anteromedial (AM) to femoral AM (anatomical), tibial posterolateral (PL) to femoral high AM (nonanatomical/mismatch), and tibial AM to femoral high AM. Double grafts were placed in an anatomical fashion (AM to AM and PL to PL). In each case, pressure-measuring films were inserted between the ACL and roof, the ACL and PCL, and the AM and PL bundles (for double-bundle group only). Knees were then moved with 40 N of force and from full flexion to full extension, and the pressure pattern on the film was analyzed.
Results: Compared with other groups, only the AM–high AM group showed significantly higher roof impingement pressure (P < .05). There was no significant difference in PCL impingement pressure between the intact ACL group and any of the reconstructed groups. No impingement pressure was observed between the grafts in the anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction.
Conclusion: This study evaluated the effect of different tunnel placements on the impingement pressure after ACL reconstruction. Anatomical single- or double-bundle ACL reconstruction and nonanatomical tibial PL–femoral high AM ACL reconstruction do not cause roof, PCL, and interbundle impingement.
Clinical relevance: Surgeons can perform the anatomical double-bundle ACL, anatomical single-bundle, and nonanatomical tibial PL–femoral high AM reconstructions as impingement-free reconstructions.
AllaireRMuriukiMGilbertsonLHarnerCD. Biomechanical consequences of a tear of the posterior root of the medial meniscus similar to the total meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1922-1931.
BachusKNDeMarcoALJuddKTHorwitzDSBrodkeDS. Measuring contact area, force, and pressure for bioengineering applications: using Fuji Film and Tekscan system. Med Eng Phys. 2006;28:483-488.
4.
BernardMHertelPHornungHCierpinskiTH. Femoral insertion of the ACL: radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg. 1997;10:14-22.
CuomoPEdwardsAGironFBullAMJAmisAAAgliettiP. Validation of the 65° Howell guide for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:70-75.
8.
FerrettiMEkdahlMShenWFuFH. Osseous landmarks of the femoral attachment of the anterior cruciate ligament: an anatomical study. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:1218-1225.
9.
FithianDCPaxtonEWStoneML. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:335-346.
10.
FuFHBennettCHMaCBMenetreyJLattermannC. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, part II: operative procedures and clinical correlations. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:124-130.
11.
FujimotoESumenYDeieMYasumotoMKobayashiKOchiM. Anterior cruciate ligament graft impingement against the posterior cruciate ligament: diagnosis using MRI plus three-dimensional reconstruction software. Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;22:1125-1129.
12.
FungDTZhangLQ. Modeling of ACL impingement against the intercondylar notch. Clin Biomech. 2003;18:933-941.
13.
GossBCHowellSMHullML. Quadriceps load aggravates and roofplasty mitigates active impingement of anterior cruciate ligament grafts against the intercondylar roof. J Orthop Res. 1998;16:611-617.
14.
GossBCHullMLHowellSM. Contact pressure and tension in anterior cruciate ligament grafts subjected to roof impingement during passive extension. J Orthop Res. 1997;15:263-268.
HameSLMarkolfKLHunterDMOakesDAZoricB. Effects of notchplasty and femoral tunnel position on excursion patterns of an anterior cruciate ligament graft. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:340-345.
17.
HarnerCDVogrinTM. What’s new in sports medicine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1095-1099.
18.
HowellSM. Principles for placing the tibial tunnel and avoiding roof impingement during reconstruction of a torn anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6:S49-S55.
19.
IriuchishimaTTajimaGInghamSJ. Intercondylar roof impingement pressure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a porcine model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(6):590-594.
20.
JagodzinskiMLeisAIselbornKWMallGNerlichMBoschU. Impingement pressure and tension forces of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003;11:85-90.
21.
JagodzinskiMRichterGMPasslerHH. Biomechanical analysis of knee hyperextension and of the impingement of the anterior cruciate ligament: a cinematographic MRI study with impact on tibial tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2000;8:11-19.
22.
LiauJJChengCKHuangCHLoWH. Effect of Fuji pressure sensitive film on actual contact characteristics of artificial tibiofemoral joint. Clin Biomech. 2002;17:698-704.
23.
LohJCFukudaYTsudaESteadmanRJFuFHWooSL. Knee stability and graft function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison between 11 o’clock and 10 o’clock femoral tunnel placement. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:297-304.
24.
MaeTShinoKMiyamaT. Single versus two-femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique: Biomechanical analysis using a robotic simulator. Arthroscopy. 2001;17:708-716.
25.
MunetaTKogaHMochizukiT. A prospective randomized study of 4-strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double bundle techniques. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:618-628.
26.
MunetaTYamamotoHIshibashiTAsahinaSMurakamiSFuruyaK. The effects of tibial tunnel placement and roofplasty on reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament knees. Arthroscopy. 1995;11:57-62.
27.
NishimoriMSumenYSakaridaniKNakamuraM. An evaluation of reconstructed ACL impingement on PCL using MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:722-726.
28.
SegawaHKogaYOmoriGSakamotoMHaraT. Influence of the femoral tunnel location and angle on the contact pressure in the femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:444-448.
29.
SimmonsRHowellSMHullML. Effect of the angle of the femoral and tibial tunnels in the coronal plane and incremental excision of the posterior cruciate ligament on tension of an anterior cruciate ligament graft: an in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(6):1018-1029.
30.
StaubliHURauschningW. Tibial attachment area of the anterior cruciate ligament in the extended knee position: anatomy and cryosections in vitro complemented by magnetic resonance arthrography in vivo. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1994;2:138-146.
31.
SteinerMEMurrayMMRodeoSA. Strategies to improve anterior cruciate ligament healing and graft placement. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:176-189.
32.
StrobelMJCastilloRJWeilerA. Reflex extension loss after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction due to femoral “high noon” graft placement. Arthroscopy. 2001;17:408-411.
33.
YagiMWongEKKanamoriADebskiREFuFHWooSL. Biomechanical analysis of anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:660-666.
34.
YasudaKKondoEIchiyamaHTanabeYTohyamaH. Clinical evaluation of anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:240-251.
35.
YunesMRichmondJCEngelsEAPinczewskiLA. Patellar versus hamstring tendons in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2001;17:248-257.
36.
ZantopTWellmannMFuFHPetersonW. Tunnel positioning of anteromedial and posterolateral bundles in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anatomical and radiographic findings. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:65-72.
