spiral.imperial.ac.uk · web viewthe graft was positioned in a central tibial to an anteromedial...
TRANSCRIPT
Anterolateral tenodesis or anterolateral ligament complex reconstruction:
effect of flexion angle at graft fixation when combined with ACL reconstruction
Eivind Inderhaug MD PhD 1, Joanna M Stephen PhD 2,3, Andy Williams FRCS(Orth) 2, Andrew A Amis FREng, DSc 3,4.
1: Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway
2: Fortius Clinic, London, UK
3: Biomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, UK.
4: Musculoskeletal Surgery Group, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London School of Medicine, London UK.
Study performed at Imperial College London.
Correspondence to: Prof Andrew Amis, Biomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK; [email protected].
Acknowledgements:Dr Inderhaug was supported by a fellowship grant from the Bergen Regional Health Authority. Dr Stephen was supported by the Fortius Clinic. The laboratory work was supported by a grant, euipment loan and donation of surgical devices from Smith & Nephew Ltd, which was paid to a research account of Imperial College London. The authors also thank Dr Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet, of Lyon, France, for visiting the laboratory to demonstrate his surgical methods; he also provided the illustrations of the surgical procedures (Figures 2 and 3).
Blinded text in manuscript:Line 125: The ethics permit: ICHTB HTA licence 12275, REC Wales 12/WA/0196.Line 126: tissue bank: Science Crae, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
1
2
3456789
10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
35
36
37
38
39
40
ABSTRACT:
Background: Despite numerous technical descriptions of anterolateral procedures,
there is limited knowledge regarding the effect of knee flexion angle during graft
fixation.
Purpose: To determine the effect of knee flexion angle during graft fixation on
tibiofemoral joint kinematics for a modified Lemaire tenodesis, or an anterolateral
ligament complex reconstruction, combined with ACL reconstruction.
Study design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Twelve cadaveric knees were mounted in a test rig with kinematics
recorded from 0° - 90°. Loads applied to the tibia were: 90-N anterior translation, 5-
Nm internal tibial rotation, and combined 90-N anterior force and 5-Nm internal
rotation. Intact, ACL-deficient and combined ACL plus anterolateral-deficient states
were tested, and then ACL reconstruction was performed and testing was repeated.
Thereafter modified Lemaire tenodeses and anterolateral ligament procedures with
graft fixation at 0 °, 3 0 ° and 6 0 ° knee flexion and 20-N graft tension were performed
combined with the ACL reconstruction - and repeat testing was performed
throughout. Repeated-measures ANOVA and Bonferrroni-adjusted t tests were used
for statistical analysis.
Results: In combined ACL and anterolateral-deficiency, isolated ACL reconstruction
left residual laxity for both anterior translation and internal rotation. Anterior
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
translation was restored for all combinations of ACL and anterolateral procedures.
The combined ACL reconstruction and ALL procedure restored intact knee
kinematics when fixed in full extension, but when fixed in 30 ° and 60 ° left residual
laxity in internal rotation (P=0.043). The combined ACL reconstruction and modified
Lemaire procedure restored internal rotation regardless of knee flexion angle at graft
fixation. When comparing the combined ACL reconstruction and lateral procedure
states to the ACL-only reconstructed state, a significant reduction in internal rotation
laxity was seen with the modified Lemaire tenodesis, but not with the ALL procedure.
Conclusion: In a combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee the modified Lemaire
tenodesis combined with ACL reconstruction restored normal laxities at all angles of
flexion for graft fixation (0°, 30° or 60°), with 20-N tension. The combined ACL and
ALL procedure restored intact knee kinematics when tensioned in full extension.
Clinical relevance: In combined anterolateral procedure plus intraarticular ACL
reconstruction, the knee flexion angle is important when fixing the graft. A modified
Lemaire procedure restored intact knee laxities when fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° flexion.
The ALL procedure restored normal laxities only when fixed in full extension.
Key terms: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, ACL, lateral extraarticular
tenodesis, LET, Lemaire, anterolateral ligament, ALL, biomechanics.
What is known about this subject: Clinical and radiological findings suggest that
anterolateral structures can be injured at the time of the ACL tear. This provides a
rationale for combining extraarticular procedures with the intraarticular ACL
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
reconstruction in selected cases. Although numerous descriptions of anterolateral
techniques exist, there is no consensus on how graft fixation should be performed to
best restore native knee laxity.
What this study adds to existing knowledge: If performing a modified Lemaire
tenodesis in combination with an ACL reconstruction in a combined ACL and
anterolateral injured knee, native knee kinematics can be restored if the graft is fixed
at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion. If, however, performing an ALL procedure, the most
favorable kinematics were found if the graft was tensioned at full extension.
INTRODUCTION:
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
Extra-articular procedures have historically been used in isolation as surgical
treatment for ACL deficiency 12,27,30. With arthroscopic assistance, intra-articular ACL
reconstruction was popularized and quickly became the primary treatment due to the
less invasive approach and improved clinical outcomes 6,8. Some studies have,
however, reported that combining extra-articular procedures with the intra-articular
ACL reconstruction can improve outcomes as compared to an isolated ACL
reconstruction 29,32,36,47. Recently there has been renewed interest in the importance of
anterolateral structures in controlling anterolateral rotational instability (ALRI) of the
knee 16,19,35,41. Biomechanical studies provide a rationale for this additional effect
observed when performing anterolateral procedures in conjunction with ACL
reconstruction 2,17,44.
Numerous extra-articular techniques have been described in the literature 4,12,18,26,27.
While many of these have been abandoned, some - such as the Lemaire tenodesis -
are still in use 9,30,46. More recent techniques, based on the anterolateral ligament,
have been described as less invasive and more anatomic than traditional
approaches, and have provided promising preliminary clinical data 43. Several
biomechanical studies have explored technical aspects of potential anterolateral
procedures 22,31,44. A graft path deep to the LCL and with the femoral graft insertion in
the area proximal and posterior to the lateral epicondyle has been shown to have a
desirable length change pattern with knee flexion 22.
Although the understanding of extra-articular techniques has been advanced by
recent studies, there are still unanswered questions for surgeons who want to add
such procedures to intra-articular ACL reconstruction. An important issue is the angle
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
of flexion that should be used when tensioning and fixing the graft. Technical
descriptions diverge in their recommendations and there is no clear consensus on
protocols. The current study therefore aimed to investigate the effect of knee flexion
angle during graft fixation when performing a modified Lemaire tenodesis - that had
previously been found to have favorable kinematic effects 17 - and a recently
described anterolateral ligament complex (ALL) procedure 41 , in combination with an
ACL reconstruction in a knee with a combined ACL and anterolateral injury.
The underlying hypotheses for the current study were: (1) that a combined ACL and
anterolateral lesion would increase knee laxity as compared to an isolated ACL
injury. (2) That an isolated ACL reconstruction could not restore intact knee
kinematics in a combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee, (3) that there would be
no difference in kinematics between the intact knee and the combined ACL
reconstruction/modified Lemaire tenodesis tensioned at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion,
and (4) that there would be no difference in kinematics between the intact knee and
the combined ACL reconstruction/anterolateral ligament procedure tensioned at 0°,
30° or 60° of knee flexion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Preparation of specimens
After ethical approval (blinded for review), 12 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were
obtained from a tissue bank (blinded for review). Mean age was 49 (range 28-62: 5
right and 7 left knees, 6 male, 6 female). Specimens were stored at -20°C and
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
thawed for 24 h before testing. During experiments they were kept moist using water
spray. Soft tissues were removed further away than 15 cm from the joint and both
tibia and femur were cut 20 cm from the joint line. Skin and subcutaneous fat were
removed. An intramedullary rod was cemented into the femur using poly
methylmethacrylate bone cement.
The femoral rod was secured in a six degree-of-freedom rig at 6° valgus to align the
mechanical axis of the knee to the test rig (Figure 1) 49. A tibial pot with a 50 cm axial
extending rod was cemented onto the distal tibia. The rig allowed passive knee
motion from 0° to 100° of flexion by moving the femur whilst the tibia hung vertically.
A Steinman pin was drilled mediolaterally through the tibia so that a semi-circular
hoop could be mounted anteriorly. Using the hoop, anterior drawer force could be
applied to the proximal tibia by a string, pulley and weight system without restricting
the coupled tibial rotation. A 20 cm polyethylene disc was secured to the tibial rod
and hanging weights applied via a pulley and string system to opposite poles of the
disc allowed tibial internal rotation torques to be applied. A clamping device was also
attached to the central rod so that the tibia could be returned to and held in its neutral
position at any time during testing. The neutral position was marked at the start of the
experiment in three angles of knee flexion (0°, 30° and 60°).
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Figure 1 – The knees were mounted in the six-degree of freedom rig and optical
trackers were securely drilled into bone. A pulley and weight system was used to
apply external loads during the kinematic testing from 0° to 90° of knee flexion.
Kinematic measurements
Optical tracking was performed using a Polaris camera system (NDI, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada) and BrainLab reflective Markers (BrainLab, Feldkirchen, Germany)
securely mounted to the tibia and femur (Figure 1). By digitizing fiducial markers
attached to anatomic landmarks on tibia and femur a reference coordinate system
was created. The most medial and lateral parts of the tibial plateau and the anatomic
axis (the distal extension rod) were used to create the tibial plane. For the femoral
plane a transverse axis from the medial to the lateral epicondyles and the proximal
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
end of the intramedullary rod were used. The kinematic data were retrieved using an
established method 7,17,23. Zero degrees of flexion was defined as the position where
the tibial and femoral rods were parallel as seen in the sagittal plane. Anterior
translation was calculated as the perpendicular distance from the midpoint of the
femoral epicondylar axis to the tibial coronal reference plane, and motions were
described as tibial motion relative to the femur. The translational accuracy of the
tracking system was ± 0.04 mm 20 and the rotational accuracy was ± 0.03 °.
Surgical technique
The same experienced orthopaedic surgeon performed all surgery with the knee
mounted in the test rig. An initial arthroscopy was performed to ensure no damage to
cruciate ligaments, menisci, cartilage or other intraarticular structures. After testing
the intact state, the ACL was resected arthroscopically. After testing the ACL injured
state, an anterolateral lesion was created. A choice was made to create a “worst
case scenario” (including both the ALL and capsulo-osseous fibers of the ITB) as the
baseline for testing of anterolateral procedures. A 50 mm incision was made in the
mid-substance of the ITB along its fibers in a distal to proximal direction starting at
Gerdy’s tubercle. Through this incision the lateral (fibular) collateral ligament (LCL)
was identified and preserved. The mid-substance fibers of the ALL were identified
and a cut was made anterior and parallel to the LCL from the lateral epicondyle to the
tibiofemoral joint line to transect the ALL and the capsule 11,19. Proximal to the LCL
the retrograde, supracondylar and proximal femoral attachments of the ITB were
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
identified and transected 21. The combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee was
then tested.
The arthroscopic ACL reconstruction was performed with a 10 mm bone-patellar
tendon-bone autograft harvested from the tested knee. The graft was positioned in a
central tibial to an anteromedial fiber bundle femoral attachment position. The
femoral bone block was fixed with a 7x25 mm interference screw (RCI, Smith &
Nephew, Andover, USA) and the tibial bone block was fixed with a 9x35 screw (RCI,
Smith & Nephew, Andover, USA). The knee was held at 30° of flexion and the graft
was tensioned with an 80 N manual pull, using a tensiometer. Secure back-up
fixation was performed on both the tibia and the femur by tying the bone block
sutures to cortical bone screws.
The modified Lemaire tenodesis and the ALL procedure were chosen due to their
recent popularity, and both were used in each knee. The former has been shown to
restore intact knee kinematics in a combined injured knee 17, while the latter was the
first ALL reconstruction used in a large clinical series 43 . To avoid any bias due to
tissue deterioration and order of procedures, a study administrator (not taking part in
surgery) determined a variable order that was only given to the surgeon throughout
the study. At the start of each procedure the knees were brought back to and held in
their native neutral position at the relevant flexion angle, using a clamping device. A
former study investigating the effect of graft tensioning protocols found that 20 N
tension gave optimal restoration of native knee kinematics and was therefore applied
in the current study 17 . Braided sutures (Ultrabraid, Smith & Nephew, Andover, USA)
were used to whipstitch the free ends of all grafts so that these could be passed to
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
the medial side of the knee through a full-length femoral tunnel. A hanging weight
was thereafter applied to allow 10 cycles of flexion to extension to pre-condition the
graft before the final fixation was performed. An 8x25 mm interference screw (RCI,
Smith & Nephew, Andover, USA) was used . Additional secure back-up fixation was
achieved by tying the sutures to cortical bone-screws on the medial femoral (for the
Lemaire) and tibial (for the ALL procedure) cortex.
1. The ALL procedure was performed in accordance with a previously described
technique using a 2-strand gracilis autograft in an inverted V configuration 42.
The distal ends were fixed into two pre-drilled 7 mm tunnels positioned
between Gerdy´s tubercle and the fibular head on the tibia using interference
screws (Figure 2). The graft passed superficial to the LCL and was secured in
an 8 mm femoral tunnel using an 8x25 mm interference screw. The femoral
tunnel was placed 8 mm proximal and 5 mm posterior to the lateral
epicondyle, corresponding to the femoral ALL attachment and the insertion
site of the Lemaire procedure 11,19,22,26.
Figure 2 - The ALL procedure was performed using a gracilis tendon autograft fixed
with interference screws in two graft tunnels between Gerdy´s tubercle and the fibular
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
head and one screw in a graft tunnel positioned proximal and slightly posterior to the
lateral epicondyle 9,26,31.
2. A modified Lemaire procedure was performed using a 15 x 100 mm central
strip of the ITB 9,17,26,30 (Figure 3). The tibial attachment of the ITB was kept
intact. The graft was routed deep to the LCL to the same femoral tunnel as
described for the ALL procedure. An 8x25 mm interference screw was used
for fixation, plus backup sutures.
Figure 3 - The modified Lemaire tenodesis was performed using a mid-strip of the
ITB that was left attached to the Gerdy’s tubercle, tunnelled deep to the LCL and
fixed in the same femoral tunnel as for the ALL procedure using an interference
screw.
Testing protocol
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
The kinematic data were collected from three cycles of passive knee flexion from 0° -
90°. The following states were tested: (1) intact, (2) ACL transected, (3) combined
ACL and anterolateral lesion, (4) ACL reconstruction, (5) ACL reconstruction
combined with an ALL procedure, (6) ACL reconstruction combined with a modified
Lemaire procedure. States (5) and (6) were repeated with the graft fixed at 0°, 30°, or
60° of knee flexion. States (1) to (4) were tested in that order, whilst states (5) and
(6), and the order of flexion angles at graft fixation, were randomized throughout the
study.
Each state (1) to (6) was tested from 0° - 90° of knee flexion without any external
loads and with the following loads applied: 90 N anterior drawer force, 5 Nm internal
tibial torque and 90 N anterior drawer/5 Nm internal tibial torque combined. Again,
this order of testing was randomized.
Data analysis
An a priori alpha value of 0.05 was used to denote statistical significance, giving a P
value of 0.013 after Bonferroni correction to allow for 4 comparisons. With a
hypothesized effect size of d=1.25, 12 specimens would ensure a statistical power of
80% and were therefore included in the study 14. MatLab scripts (MathWorks Inc.,
Natick, Ma, USA) were used for data processing and for calculating mean tibial
translations and rotations at 10° intervals through 0° - 90° of knee flexion. SPSS
version 22.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for statistical analysis. The Shapiro
Wilk test was applied to assess normality of the data sets. As normality was
confirmed, two-way repeated-measures analyses of variance (RM ANOVAs) were
used to compare (1) the intact state with both ACL cut and ACL plus anterolateral cut
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
states, (2) the isolated ACL reconstructed state with the intact knee, (3) the intact
state with the three ALL procedures (fixed at 0°, 30° and 60° knee flexion), (4) the
intact knee with the three Lemaire tenodeses (fixed at 0°, 30° and 60° knee flexion),
and (5) the laxity of the knee with an isolated ACL reconstruction was compared with
the laxity after each of the combined procedures. Paired t tests with Bonferroni
corrections were applied when differences across test conditions were found to
examine the hypotheses defined in the introduction.
RESULTS:
The effect of ACL and combined ACL plus anterolateral lesions
Both sectioning the ACL and cutting the anterolateral structures resulted in significant
increases in anterior tibial translation in response to the anterior draw force (Figure
4), internal rotation in response to the internal torque (Figure 5), and both effects in
response to the combined anterior force and internal torque, as compared to the
intact knees (All: P<0.001).
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16 Intact ACL Def Comb Def ACL Recon
Flexion Angle (degrees)Ante
rior
tra
nsla
tion
(m
m)
Figure 4 - The response to 90 N anterior drawer force for intact knees, ACL cut,
combined ACL and anterolateral cut and an ACL reconstructed state (N=12; Mean +
or - SD).
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25 Intact ACL Def Comb Def
ACL Recon
Flexion Angle (degrees)Inte
rnal
rot
atio
n (d
egre
es)
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
Figure 5 - The response to 5 Nm internal torque for intact knees, ACL cut, combined
ACL and anterolateral cut and an ACL reconstructed state (N=12; Mean + or - SD).
The effect of an isolated ACL reconstruction in the combined injured knee
Increased laxity persisted following an isolated ACL reconstruction, when compared to the
intact state, with increased tibial translation (P=0.035, Figure 4), internal rotation (P=0.001,
Figure 5) and combined internal rotation and anterior translation (P=0.025)
The effect of combining ACL reconstruction and anterolateral procedures on
tibiofemoral kinematics
After combining the ACL reconstruction with the ALL procedures (fixed at 0 °, 30° or
60° of flexion) , there were no differences in the response to an anterior draw force
(Figure 6) or combined anterior draw and internal rotation torque compared to the
intact knee state (both: P>0.05). For an isolated tibial internal rotation torque, an
overall residual increase of rotational laxity was observed (P=0.043 by RM-ANOVA)
(Figure 7). When the angle of graft fixation was examined by post-testing, a
significant difference was not found between the intact knees and the ALL procedure
tensioned at full extension (P>0.05). If the ALL procedure was fixed at 30° knee
flexion, pairwise testing found increased internal rotation, at 20° and from 50°- 70°
degrees of flexion (P=0.005-0.012). The ALL procedure fixed at 60° had an increased
rotation at 60° - 90° degrees of flexion (P=0.001-0.006). When comparing the laxities
of the combined ACL and ALL procedures to those of the ACL-only reconstructed
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
state, significant reductions in internal rotation from adding the ALL procedures were
not found (P>0.05).
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Intact ALL 0 degrees ALL 30 degreesALL 60 degrees
Flexion Angle (degrees)
Tran
slat
ion
(mm
)
Figure 6 - The response to 90 N anterior drawer force for intact knees and combined
ACL and ALL procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion (N=12; Mean + or -
SD).
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
Figure 7 - The response to 5 Nm internal torque for intact knees and combined ACL
and ALL procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion (N=12; Mean + or - SD).
Circles denote statistical difference (P<0.05) from intact knees.
After combining the modified Lemaire procedures (tensioned at 0 °, 30° and 60° of
flexion) with the ACL reconstruction, there were no differences in response to
anterior draw force as compared to the intact knees (P>0.05) (Figure 8). Neither were
any differences in the response to the internal torque (Figure 9) or internal torque and
anterior force combined between intact knees and any of the Lemaire procedures
(tensioned at 0 °, 30° and 60° of flexion) found (both: P>0.05). When comparing the
combined ACL and Lemaire states to the ACL-only reconstructed state, significant
reductions in knee internal rotation laxity were found (P<0.05)
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Intact Lemaire 0 degrees
Flexion Angle (degrees)
Tran
slat
ion
(mm
)
Figure 8 - The response to 90 N anterior drawer force for intact knees and combined
ACL and modified Lemaire procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion (N=12;
Mean + or - SD).
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21Intact Lemaire 0 degrees
Lemaire 30 degrees Lemaire 60 degrees
Flexion Angle (degrees)Inte
rnal
rot
atio
n (d
egre
es)
Figure 9 - The response to 5 Nm internal rotation torque for intact knees and
combined ACL and modified Lemaire procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion
(N=12; Mean + or - SD)
DISCUSSION:
The main finding in the current study is the restoration of intact knee laxity in a
combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee when performing anterolateral
procedures along with the intraarticular ACL reconstruction. This study confirmed that
an isolated ACL reconstruction could not restore native knee laxity in the presence of
the combined ACL plus anterolateral lesions. The results provide greater insight
regarding the performances of the anterolateral procedures in relation to the angle of
knee flexion during graft tensioning and fixation. The modified Lemaire tenodesis
restored native knee laxity regardless of the angle of knee flexion (0°, 30° or 60°) for
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
graft tensioning and fixation. Native knee laxity was also restored by an ALL
procedure when the graft was tensioned in full knee extension. The current findings
largely support our initial hypotheses: (1) The combined ACL and anterolateral lesion
caused an increase knee laxity as compared to an isolated ACL injury; (2) The
isolated ACL reconstruction could not restore intact knee kinematics in a combined
ACL and anterolateral injured knee; (3) There was no difference in kinematics
between the intact knee and the combined ACL reconstruction/modified Lemaire
tenodesis tensioned at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion; (4) There was no difference in
kinematics between the intact knee and the combined ACL
reconstruction/anterolateral ligament procedure tensioned at 0° of knee flexion,
although residual internal rotation laxity persisted when the ALL procedure was
tensioned at greater angles of knee flexion. These findings highlight how details of
the surgical procedure, such as the knee flexion angle at graft tensioning, influence
results when addressing a combined ACL and anterolateral injury 28,45 . A
biomechanical factor which helps to explain the efficacy of the modified Lemaire
procedure is the relatively anterior attachment to Gerde’s tubercle, which gives a
more efficient force vector to resist anterior movement of the lateral aspect of the
tibia than if the graft is attached towards the head of the fibula 2 .
Given that anterolateral structures are believed to have a role in ALRI, it is
reasonable to think that graft fixation near full knee extension (the flexion angle
where the pivot shift can be elicited) may be favorable when aiming to restore normal
knee kinematics. Lemaire´s original tenodesis adhered to this principle as it was
tensioned at 30° knee flexion 26. The Lemaire procedure has been modified in later
publications, but few of the authors have reported angle of flexion at graft fixation
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
9,25,30. A recent description by Wagner et al. differed from Lemaire by fixing at 70°, but
no clear rationale was given for the use of a higher angle of flexion 48. There has
been little biomechanical study of the Lemaire procedure. For the relatively new ALL
procedures most descriptions also recommend fixation at the traditional 20° - 30°
knee flexion 40,42. Sonnery-Cottet et al. reported tensioning and fixation in full
extension in their follow-up evaluation of 92 patients treated with a combined ACL
and anterolateral approach 43. On the other hand Nitri et al. have suggested using 75°
knee flexion - on the basis of findings from a biomechanical study by Parsons et al.
31,33. In that latter study the ALL was described as a primary stabilizer in internal
rotation of the tibia at high flexion angles. These results have, however, later been
disputed due to the authors removing the ITB prior to kinematic testing 34. Since a
later study has shown that the ITB is the most important restraint for tibial internal
rotation 21, not accounting for this structure could likely over-estimate the importance
of the ALL. Translation of these results to a clinical setting should therefore be done
with caution.
A number of studies have investigated the biomechanical performance of
anterolateral tenodeses in combination with intraarticular ACL reconstruction
3,5,13,17,31,37,44. Of these only three have evaluated the procedures used in the current
work. Spencer et al. performed an ALL reconstruction using braided suture tape and
a modified Lemaire procedure using a 10 mm strip of the ITB 44. The ALL procedure
used in that study was unable to restore the intact internal rotation pattern whilst the
Lemaire procedure caused significant improvements in rotational control; these
findings are consistent with the present results in spite of differences in technique.
Another study compared the kinematic patterns of several anterolateral procedures
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
including a modified Lemaire and an anatomic ALL-reconstruction 17. In that study the
optimal graft tension was investigated by applying several forces at graft fixation. The
Lemaire tenodesis restored intact knee kinematics with both 20N and 40N of graft
tensioning. The ALL reconstruction left residual laxity, even when 40N graft tension
was applied. Schon et al. investigated the effect of flexion angle during fixation of an
anatomic ALL graft on knee kinematics when combined with an ACL reconstruction
38. The ALL graft was tensioned stepwise from 0° to 90° of knee flexion and the
kinematic response was assessed. Their main finding was overconstraint of internal
rotation for all the graft fixation angles, but a relatively high 88 N graft tension was
used in that study. The use of 20 N graft tension in the present study follows earlier
work 17, and it did match the native knee laxity for the modified Lemaire procedure
with fixation at any of the knee flexion angles investigated (0o – 60o). The ALL
procedure, with a two strand configuration rather than the single strand used in
previous studies, restored intact knee kinematics when fixed in full knee extension –
but led to incomplete control of internal rotation if fixed in flexion. It was observed that
knee flexion-extension caused one or other of the separate arms of the ALL graft to
slacken, so that it was less effective for resisting tibial internal rotation; this suggests
use of a more robust single-strand graft. Although the long-term effects on cartilage
health of adding an anterolateral procedure are unknown 10,15, the authors suggest
that procedures that can restore knee laxity using lower graft tensions (such as 20 N)
should be a safer choice for surgeons wanting to address anterolateral injuries,
because a higher tension may alter knee kinematics and elevate articular contact
pressure.
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
The current study found that the modified Lemaire procedure had close to normal
kinematic performance independent of the three fixation angles used for graft
tensioning (0°, 30° and 60°). A explanation for these results might be found in studies
looking at length change patterns of anterolateral procedures 22,24,39. Kittl et al.
investigated both anatomic structures and such potential surgical procedures
throughout the knee range of motion 22. Although the tested structures/procedures
had a wide variety of elongation patterns, two factors did reliably predict relatively
“isometric” graft behavior: a graft path deep to the LCL and femoral graft insertion
proximal/posterior to the lateral epicondyle. A key for these findings is thought to be a
“pulley effect” of the LCL that facilitates the favorable graft behavior. A graft path
such as the modified Lemaire tenodesis had a length change of less than 5% through
0° - 90° of knee flexion. This supports the current results and illustrates that the
choice of anterolateral procedure, the graft tension, and the knee flexion angle at
which the graft is tensioned and fixed, are all factors that influence time-zero
kinematics.
Limitations of this study include the reporting of results at time zero after surgery.
Postoperative effects of tissue regeneration and rehabilitation might affect graft
tension and knee laxity over time and are not accounted for in a laboratory setting.
Also, since the study was performed on unloaded knees, it is hard to predict how the
results translate into a fully weight-bearing knee facing the loads of vigorous sports.
The current anterolateral injury involved both the anterolateral ligament and the deep
proximal attachments of the ITB, and also split along the ITB. This might be a “worst
case scenario” as compared to anterolateral injuries seen in a clinical setting but
represents a base case scenario that is ideal if aiming to demonstrate performance of
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
anterolateral procedures. A pilot study for a previous experiment 17 showed that the
longitudinal ITB split did not affect the kinematics, so it would not have
disadvantaged the ALL procedure (which is performed minimally-invasively in-vivo) in
the present work. While the analyses found many significant effects arising from the
surgical procedures, the variability among the knees is reflected by the large
standard deviations about the mean behavior. The range from loose to tight knees is
a commonplace clinical observation – some knees which are ACL-deficient can
remain tighter than other intact knees 1,17 – but this normal between-knees variability
was allowed-for by using the repeated-measures statistical analysis. We therefore
believe that the study gives a realistic time-zero picture of procedures with different
graft tensioning angles and that these results might be useful for surgeons deciding
to combine anterolateral procedures with intra-articular ACL reconstruction. Noting
the limitations of working in-vitro, future work should focus on clinical outcomes after
combined ACL reconstruction and anterolateral procedures to help to define
subpopulations of patients who will benefit from the combined approach.
Conclusion
In the combined anterolateral and ACL-injured state, the isolated ACL reconstruction
failed to restore normal kinematics and left persistent increased tibial translation and
internal rotation as compared to the intact state. The modified Lemaire tenodesis
combined with ACL reconstruction restored normal knee kinematics regardless of the
angle of flexion at which the graft was tensioned and fixed, so the graft can be
tensioned at the knee flexion angle of preference (from 0° to 60°). This finding relied
on the use of a 20 N graft tensioning protocol with the tibia held in neutral rotation, to
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
avoid under- or over-constraint. The two-strand ALL procedure combined with ACL
reconstruction replicated the normal knee kinematics when fixed in extension but
failed to restore internal rotation when fixed in flexion.
REFERENCES:
1. Amis AA. Anterior cruciate ligament replacement - knee stability and the effects of implants. J. Bone Joint. Surg. [Br] 1989; 71B: 819-824.
2. Amis AA. Anterolateral knee biomechanics. Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthroscopy 2017; 25:1003-1011. doi 10.1007/s00167-017-4436-x.
3. Amis AA, Scammell BE. Biomechanics of intra-articular and extra-articular reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75B:812–817.
4. Andrews JR, Sanders R. A “mini-reconstruction” technique in treating anterolateral rotatory instability (ALRI). Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;172:93–96.
5. Butler PD, Mellecker CJ, Rudert MJ, Albright JP. Single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstructions in isolation and in conjunction with extra-articular iliotibial band tenodesis. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:97–106.
6. Chambat P, Guier C, Sonnery-Cottet B, Fayard J-M, Thaunat M. The evolution of ACL reconstruction over the last fifty years. Int Orthop. 2013;37(2):181–186.
7. Cuomo P, Rama KRBS, Bull AMJ, Amis AA. The Effects of Different Tensioning Strategies on Knee Laxity and Graft Tension After Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(12):2083–2090.
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545546
547548549550551552
553554555
556557558
559560
561562563564
8. Dandy DJ, Flanagan JP, Steenmeyer V. Arthroscopy and the management of the ruptured anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;(167):43–49.
9. Dejour D, Vanconcelos W, Bonin N, Saggin PRF. Comparative study between mono-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone, double-bundle hamstring and mono-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone combined with a modified Lemaire extra-articular procedure in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2012;37(2):193–199.
10. Dodds AL, Gupte CM, Neyret P, Williams AM, Amis AA. Extra-articular techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(11):1440–1448.
11. Dodds AL, Halewood C, Gupte CM, Williams A, Amis AA. The anterolateral ligament: Anatomy, length changes and association with the Segond fracture. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(3):325–331.
12. Ellison AE. Distal iliotibial-band transfer for anterolateral rotatory instability of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(3):330–337.
13. Engebretsen L, Lew WD, Lewis JL, Hunter RE. The effect of an iliotibial tenodesis on intraarticular graft forces and knee joint motion. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(2):169–176.
14. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191.
15. Ferretti A. Extra-articular reconstruction in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee: a commentary. Joints. 2014;2(1):41–47.
16. Hewison CE, Tran MN, Kaniki N, Remtulla A, Bryant D, Getgood AM. Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Reduces Rotational Laxity When Combined With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Arthroscopy. 2015. Doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.04.089.
17. Inderhaug E, Stephen J, Williams A, Amis A. Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral procedures combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45:347-354.; doi: 10.1177/0363546516681555.
18. Ireland J, Trickey EL. Macintosh tenodesis for anterolateral instability of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62(3):340–345.
19. Kennedy MI, Claes S, Fuso FAF, et al. The Anterolateral Ligament: An Anatomic, Radiographic, and Biomechanical Analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1606–1615.
20. Khadem R, Yeh CC, Sadeghi-Tehrani M, et al. Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems. Comput Aided Surg. 2000;5(2):98–107.
565566567
568569570571572
573574575
576577578
579580
581582583
584585586
587588
589590591592
593594595596
597598
599600601
602603604
21. Kittl C, El-Daou H, Athwal KK, et al. The Role of the Anterolateral Structures and the ACL in Controlling Laxity of the Intact and ACL-Deficient Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):345–354.
22. Kittl C, Halewood C, Stephen JM, et al. Length Change Patterns in the Lateral Extra-articular Structures of the Knee and Related Reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43:354-362.
23. Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA. Biomechanical Comparison of Anatomic Double-Bundle, Anatomic Single-Bundle, and Nonanatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(2):279–288.
24. Krackow KA, Brooks RL. Optimization of knee ligament position for lateral extraarticular reconstruction. Am J Sports Medicine. 1983;11(5):293–302.
25. Lazzarone C, Crova M, Brach Del Prever E, Comba D. Extraarticular reconstruction in the treatment of chronic lesions of the anterior cruciate ligament. Ital J Orthop Traumatol. 1990;16(4):459–465.
26. Lemaire M. Ruptures anciennes du ligament croisé antérieur du genou. J Chir. 1967;93(3):311–320.
27. Losee RE, Johnson TR, Southwick WO. Anterior subluxation of the lateral tibial plateau. A diagnostic test and operative repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60(8):1015–1030.
28. Mansour R, Yoong P, McKean D, Teh JL. The iliotibial band in acute knee trauma: patterns of injury on MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2014;43(10):1369–1375.
29. Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, et al. Intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction utilizing autogeneous semitendinosus and gracilis tendons: 5-year clinical results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003;11(1):2–8.
30. Neyret P, Palomo JR, Donell ST, Dejour H. Extra-articular tenodesis for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in amateur skiers. Br J Sports Med. 1994;28(1):31–34.
31. Nitri M, Rasmussen MT, Williams BT, et al. An In Vitro Robotic Assessment of the Anterolateral Ligament, Part 2: Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Combined With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44:593-601.
32. Noyes FR, Barber SD. The effect of an extra-articular procedure on allograft reconstructions for chronic ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):882–892.
33. Parsons EM, Gee AO, Spiekerman C, Cavanagh PR. The Biomechanical Function of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2015..43: 669-674.
605606607
608609610
611612613614
615616
617618619
620621
622623624
625626627
628629630631
632633634
635636637638
639640641
642643644
34. Parsons EM, Gee AO, Spiekerman C, Cavanagh PR. The Biomechanical Function of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee: Response. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):NP22.
35. Rasmussen MT, Nitri M, Williams BT, et al. An In Vitro Robotic Assessment of the Anterolateral Ligament, Part 1: Secondary Role of the Anterolateral Ligament in the Setting of an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44:585-592.
36. Rezende FC, Moraes VY, Martimbianco A, Luzo MV, da Silveira Franciozi CE, Belloti JC. Does Combined Intra- and Extraarticular ACL Reconstruction Improve Function and Stability? A Meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015:1–10. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4285-y.
37. Samuelson M, Draganich LF, Zhou X, Krumins P, Reider B. The effects of knee reconstruction on combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral capsular deficiencies. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(4):492–497.
38. Schon JM, Moatshe G, Brady AW, Serra Cruz R, et al. Anatomic anterolateral ligament reconstruction of the knee leads to overconstraint at any flexion angle. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:2546-2556.
39. Sidles JA, Larson RV, Garbini JL, Downey DJ, Matsen FA. Ligament length relationships in the moving knee. J Orthop Res. 1988;6(4):593–610.
40. Smith JO, Yasen SK, Lord B, Wilson AJ. Combined anterolateral ligament and anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. September 2015. Doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3783-5.
41. Sonnery-Cottet B, Barbosa NC, Tuteja S, Daggett M, Kajetenek C, Thaunat M Minimally Invasive Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction in the Setting of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Arthrosc Techn. 2016. DOI:10.1016/j.eats.2015.11.005.
42. Sonnery-Cottet B, Lutz C, Daggett M, et al. The Involvement of the Anterolateral Ligament in Rotational Control of the Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2016. doi:10.1177/0363546515625282.
43. Sonnery-Cottet B, Thaunat M, Freychet B, Pupim BHB, Murphy CG, Claes S. Outcome of a Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Technique With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1598–1605.
44. Spencer L, Burkhart TA, Tran MN, et al. Biomechanical Analysis of Simulated Clinical Testing and Reconstruction of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee. Am J Sports Medicine. 2015;43(9):2189–2197.
45. Terry GC, Norwood LA, Hughston JC, Caldwell KM. How iliotibial tract injuries of the knee combine with acute anterior cruciate ligament tears to influence abnormal anterior tibial displacement. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(1):55–60.
46. Trojani C, Beaufils P, Burdin G, et al. Revision ACL reconstruction: influence of
645646647
648649650651
652653654655
656657658
659660661
662663
664665666
667668669670
671672673
674675676677
678679680
681682683
684
a lateral tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;20(8):1565–1570.
47. Vadalà AP, Iorio R, De Carli A, et al. An extra-articular procedure improves the clinical outcome in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings in female athletes. Int Orthop. 2012;37(2):187–192.
48. Wagner M, Weiler A. Anterolateral stabilization. Arthroskopie. 2014;27(3):198–201.
49. Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke TD. The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(6):873–880.
685686
687688689
690691
692693
694