Quantitative comparison of three different types of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction methods: Laxity and 3‐D kinematic measurements

Abstract

In this project, we compared knee laxity and 3‐D knee kinematics after ACL reconstruction on cadaver knees using (1) bone–patellar tendon–bone two‐tunnel; (2) synthetic ligament two‐tunnel; and (3) synthetic ligament “over‐the‐top” technique. We used a computer assisted system, based on the acquisition of the knee's movement with magnetic sensors (Polhemus, Vermont, USA). The use of personalised three‐dimensional (3D) models of the bones enabled us to ensure a reproducible measurement of three‐dimensional kinematic and laxity parameters. Our results showed that even when knee laxity was restored to normal, 3D kinematic measurements revealed that the reconstructions tended to under or over‐constrain the knee's movement. This study shows that 3D kinematics is a complementary measurement that can be useful to get a better comprehension of the knee's function after ligament reconstruction.