AJSM signin
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First published on November 12, 2006, doi:10.1177/0363546506294468
This version was published on February 1, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/2/228    most recent
0363546506294468v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, W.
Right arrow Articles by Zantop, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, W.
Right arrow Articles by Zantop, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Reconstruction
Right arrow Biomechanics
Right arrow Operative
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 35:228-234 (2007)
© 2007 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Biomechanical Evaluation of Two Techniques for Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

One Tibial Tunnel Versus Two Tibial Tunnels

Wolf Petersen, MD{dagger},*, Henning Tretow, MS{dagger}, Andre Weimann, MD{dagger}, Mirco Herbort, MS{dagger}, Freddie H. Fu, MD{ddagger}, Michael Raschke, MD{dagger} and Thore Zantop, MD{dagger}

From the {dagger} Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, Wilhelms University Muenster, Muenster, Germany, and the {ddagger} Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

* Address correspondence to Wolf Petersen, MD, Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, Wilhelms University Muenster, Waldeyerstr 1, D-48149, Muenster, Germany (e-mail: wolf.petersen{at}ukmuenster.de).

Background: This research was undertaken to determine whether there is a need for a second tibial tunnel in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Hypothesis: Anatomic two-bundle reconstruction with two tibial tunnels restores knee anterior tibial translation in response to 134 N and to 5-N·m internal tibial torque combined with 10-N·m valgus torque more closely to normal than does double-bundle reconstruction with one tibial tunnel.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: Ten cadaveric knees were subjected to a 134-N anterior tibial load at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° and to 5-N·m internal tibial torque and 10-N·m valgus torque at 15° and 30°. Resulting knee kinematics and in situ force in the anterior cruciate ligament or replacement graft were determined by using a robotic/universal force-moment sensor testing system for (1) intact, (2) anterior cruciate ligament–deficient, (3) double-bundle/one tibial tunnel, and (4) double-bundle/two tibial tunnels.

Results: Anterior tibial translation for the reconstruction with two tibial tunnels was significantly closer to that of the intact knee than was the reconstruction with one tibial tunnel at 0° and 30° of flexion (0° = 3.82 vs 6.0 mm, P < .05; 30° = 7.99 vs 11 mm, P < .05). The in situ force normalized to the intact anterior cruciate ligament for the reconstruction with two tibial tunnels was significantly higher than the in situ force of the reconstruction with one tibial tunnel (30° = 89 vs 82 N, P < .05). With a combined rotatory load, the anterior tibial translation of specimens with a tibial two-tunnel technique was significantly lower than that of specimens with one tunnel (0° = 5.7 vs 8.4 mm, P < .05; 30° = 7.5 vs 9.5 mm, P < .05).

Conclusions: Anatomic reconstruction with two tibial tunnels may produce a better biomechanical outcome, especially close to extension.

Clinical Relevance: At the time of initial fixation, there appears to be a small biomechanical advantage to the second tibial tunnel in the setting of two-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Key Words: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) • anatomic ACL reconstruction • UFS robotic system • impingement




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
E. Kondo, K. Yasuda, H. Azuma, Y. Tanabe, and T. Yagi
Prospective Clinical Comparisons of Anatomic Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedures in 328 Consecutive Patients
Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2008; 36(9): 1675 - 1687.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
U. G. Longo, J. B. King, V. Denaro, and N. Maffulli
Double-bundle arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: DOES THE EVIDENCE ADD UP?
J Bone Joint Surg Br, August 1, 2008; 90-B(8): 995 - 999.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
T. Zantop, N. Diermann, T. Schumacher, S. Schanz, F. H. Fu, and W. Petersen
Anatomical and Nonanatomical Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Importance of Femoral Tunnel Location on Knee Kinematics
Am. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2008; 36(4): 678 - 685.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
T. Zantop, M. Wellmann, F. H. Fu, and W. Petersen
Tunnel Positioning of Anteromedial and Posterolateral Bundles in Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Anatomic and Radiographic Findings
Am. J. Sports Med., January 1, 2008; 36(1): 65 - 72.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.