Premium
Biomechanical effects of medial–lateral tibial tunnel placement in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Author(s) -
Markolf Keith L.,
McAllister David R.,
Young Charles R.,
McWilliams Justin,
Oakes Daniel A.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of orthopaedic research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.041
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1554-527X
pISSN - 0736-0266
DOI - 10.1016/s0736-0266(02)00104-3
Subject(s) - posterior cruciate ligament , orthodontics , medicine , anatomy , geology , anterior cruciate ligament
With most posterior cruciate (PCL) reconstruction techniques, the distal end of the graft is fixed within a tibial bone tunnel. Although a surgical goal is to locate this tunnel at the center of the PCL's tibial footprint, errors in medial–lateral tunnel placement of the tibial drill guide are possible because the position of the tip of the guide relative to the PCL's tibial footprint can be difficult to visualize from the standard arthroscopy portals. This study was designed to measure changes in knee laxity and graft forces resulting from mal‐position of the tibial tunnel medial and lateral to the center of the PCL's tibial insertion. Bone–patellar tendon–bone allografts were inserted into three separate tibial tunnels drilled into each of 10 fresh‐frozen knee specimens. Drilling the tibial tunnel 5 mm medial or lateral to the center of the PCL's tibial footprint had no significant effect on knee laxities: the graft pretension necessary to restore normal laxity at 90° of knee flexion (laxity match pretension) with the medial tunnel was 13.8 N (29%) greater than with the central tunnel. During passive knee flexion–extension, graft forces with the medial tibial tunnel were significantly higher than those with the central tunnel for flexion angles greater than 65° while graft forces with the central tibial tunnel were not significantly different than those with the lateral tibial tunnel. Graft forces with medial and lateral tunnels were not significantly different from those with a central tunnel for 100 N applied posterior tibial force, 5 N m applied varus and valgus moment, and 5 N m applied internal and external tibial torque. With the exception of slightly higher graft forces recorded with the medial tunnel beyond 65° of passive knee flexion, errors in medial–lateral placement of the tibial tunnel would not appear to have important effects on the biomechanical characteristics of the reconstructed knee. © 2002 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.