Original Article
Tibial Tunnel Placement Accuracy During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Independent Femoral Versus Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Drilling Techniques

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.04.004Get rights and content

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of tibial tunnel placement using independent femoral (IF) versus transtibial (TT) techniques.

Methods

Ten matched pairs of cadaveric knees were randomized so that one knee in the pair underwent arthroscopic TT drilling of the femoral tunnel and the other underwent IF drilling through an accessory medial portal. For both techniques, an attempt was made to place the femoral and tibial tunnels as close to the center of the respective anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) footprints as possible. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography using a technique optimized for ligament evaluation allowed comparison of the anatomic ACL tibial footprint to the tibial tunnel aperture. The percentage of tunnel aperture contained within the native footprint, as well as the distance from the center of the tunnel aperture to the center of the footprint, was measured. Additionally, graft obliquity relative to the tibial plateau was evaluated in the sagittal plane.

Results

The percentage of tibial tunnel aperture contained within the native footprint averaged 71.6% ± 17.2% versus 52.1% ± 23.4% (P = .04) in the IF and TT groups, respectively. The distance from the center of the footprint to the center of the tibial tunnel aperture was 3.50 ± 1.6 mm and 4.40 ± 1.7 mm (P = .27) in the IF and TT groups, respectively. TT drilling placed 6 of 10 tunnels posterior to the center of the footprint versus 3 of 10 tunnels in IF drilling. The graft obliquity angles were 54.8° in TT specimens and 47.5° in IF specimens (P = .09).

Conclusions

This study adds to the literature suggesting that TT drilling with an 8-mm reamer has deleterious effects on tibial tunnel aperture and position. IF drilling, which does not involve repeated reaming of the tibial tunnel, is associated with the placement of a higher percentage of the tunnel aperture within the native tibial footprint. There was not a significant difference between the IF and TT techniques in their ability to place the center of the tibial aperture near the center of the footprint or in graft obliquity.

Clinical Relevance

ACL reconstruction has continued to evolve in an attempt to restore the functional anatomy and biomechanical behavior of the knee. Tibial tunnel characteristics—such as location, aperture topography, and tunnel obliquity—are important factors to consider in ACL reconstruction. This study compares tibial tunnels after IF and TT techniques.

Section snippets

Methods

The bilateral knees of 10 cadavers (N = 20 knees) were used for the study. We randomized each pair of cadaveric knees to receive arthroscopic TT drilling on one side and IF drilling on the other side. Care was taken in the randomization process to ensure that equal numbers of each technique were performed on left and right knees. We chose a quantity of 20 specimens as being in line with similar previous studies.11, 12 All tunnels in this study were drilled with an 8-mm reamer. Although some

Results

Results of the comparisons between preintervention and postintervention scans are summarized in Table 1, Table 2. There was a statistically significant difference with respect to the percentage of the tibial tunnel aperture placed within the native footprint. Although not statistically significant, the distance from the center of the tibial tunnel aperture to the center of the tibial ACL footprint tended to be less in the IF group compared with the TT group. The TT drilling technique tended to

Discussion

Results from this study indicate that the tibial tunnel aperture can be placed more accurately in the native ACL tibial insertion using the IF technique compared with the TT technique. More than 71% of the tibial tunnel aperture was placed within the native ACL footprint using the IF technique, which was significantly more than the 52% overlap in the TT technique. Also, although not statistically significant, the distance from the center of the tibial tunnel aperture to the center of the tibial

Conclusions

This study showed that TT drilling with an 8-mm reamer has deleterious effects on tibial tunnel aperture and position. IF drilling, which does not involve repeated reaming of the tibial tunnel, is associated with the placement of a higher percentage of tunnel aperture within the native tibial footprint. There was not a significant difference between the IF and TT techniques in their ability to place the center of the tibial aperture near the center of the footprint or in graft obliquity.

References (32)

Cited by (0)

The authors report the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding in relation to this article: S.B. receives support from MicroAire; M.D.M. receives support from Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America.

View full text