| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
|
|
|||||||
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
|||||||||
From the Orthopaedic Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France
* Address correspondence to Stephan Plaweski, MD, PhD, Orthopaedic Department, University of Grenoble, CHU Grenoble, BP 217, 38043 Grenoble, France (e-mail: SPlaweski{at}chu-grenoble.fr).
Background: Poor outcome in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is often related to tunnel position.
Hypothesis: Improving accuracy of the tunnel position will lead to improved outcome.
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: Sixty patients were randomized to either standard instrumentation or computer-assisted guides to position the tibial and femoral tunnels. The results were evaluated on clinical outcome based on International Knee Documentation Committee form (laxity) and radiologic assessment: radiologic Lachman (Telos at 150 and 200 N) and analysis of the tunnel positions.
Results: International Knee Documentation Committee laxity was level A in 22 knees in the conventional group (mean, 1.5 mm at 200 N) compared with 26 navigated knees (mean laxity, 1.3 mm; P = .49). Laxity was less than 2 mm in 96.7% of the navigated group and 83% of the conventional group (P = .292). The variability of laxity in the navigated group was significantly less than in the conventional group, with the standard deviation of the navigated group being smaller than that in the conventional group (P = .0003 at 150 N and .0005 at 200 N Telos). A significant difference (P = .03) was found between the groups in the ATB value (distance between the projection of the Blumensaat line on the tibial plateau and the anterior edge of the tibial tunnel), characterizing the sagittal position of the tibial tunnel (negative ATB values imply graft impingement in extension). In the conventional group, mean ATB was –0.2 (–5 to +4), whereas it was 0.4 (0 to 3) in the navigated patients. There were no negative ATB values in the navigated group.
Conclusion: This study confirms that the accuracy and consistency of tibial tunnel position can be improved by the use of computer-assisted navigation and that the clinical result in terms of laxity is more reliable.
Key Words: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction • computer-assisted surgery • surgical navigation • cruciate ligament
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Easley, B. Chuckpaiwong, N. Cooperman, R. Schuh, T. Ogut, I. L.D. Le, and J. Reach Computer-Assisted Surgery for Subtalar Arthrodesis. A Study in Cadavers J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2008; 90(8): 1628 - 1636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Ferretti, E. Monaco, L. Labianca, F. Conteduca, and A. De Carli Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery Study Am. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2008; 36(4): 760 - 766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Robinson, L. Carrat, C. Granchi, and P. Colombet Influence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Bundles on Knee Kinematics: Clinical Assessment Using Computer-Assisted Navigation Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 2007; 35(12): 2006 - 2013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Bauwens, G. Matthes, M. Wich, F. Gebhard, B. Hanson, A. Ekkernkamp, and D. Stengel Navigated Total Knee Replacement. A Meta-Analysis J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., February 1, 2007; 89(2): 261 - 269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
