Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(07): 725-730
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741430
Original Article

An Anatomically Placed Tibial Tunnel does not Completely Surround a Simulated PCL Reconstruction Graft in the Proximal Tibia

Christopher Kim
1   Private Practice, Iowa Clinic, West Des Moines, Iowa
,
Dustin Baker
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri
,
Brian Albers
3   SSM Health Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, Saint Louis, Missouri
,
Scott G. Kaar
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction It is hypothesized that anatomic tunnel placement will create tunnels with violation of the posterior cortex and subsequently an oblique aperture that is not circumferentially surrounded by bone. In this article, we aimed to characterize posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial tunnel using a three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) model.

Methods Ten normal knee CTs with the patella, femur, and fibula removed were used. Simulated 11 mm PCL tibial tunnels were created at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees. The morphology of the posterior proximal tibial exit was examined with 3D modeling software. The length of tunnel not circumferentially covered (cortex violation) was measured to where the tibial tunnel became circumferential. The surface area and volume of the cylinder both in contact with the tibial bone and that not in contact with the tibia were determined. The percentages of the stick-out length surface area and volume not in contact with bone were calculated.

Results The mean stick-out length of uncovered graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 26.3, 20.5, 17.3, and 12.7 mm, respectively. The mean volume of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 840.8, 596.2, 425.6, and 302.9 mm3, respectively. The mean percent of volume of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 32, 29, 25, and 24%, respectively. The mean surface of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 372.2, 280.4, 208.8, and 153.3 mm2, respectively. The mean percent of surface area of exposed graft at 55, 50, 45, and 40 degrees were 40, 39, 34, and 34%, respectively.

Conclusion Anatomic tibial tunnel creation using standard transtibial PCL reconstruction techniques consistently risks posterior tibial cortex violation and creation of an oblique aperture posteriorly. This risk is decreased with decreasing the angle of the tibial tunnel, though the posterior cortex is still compromised with angles as low as 40 degrees. With posterior cortex violation, a surgeon should be aware that a graft within the tunnel or socket posteriorly may not be fully in contact with bone. This is especially relevant with inlay and socket techniques.

Keywords

posterior cruciate ligament - tunnel - reconstruction - computed tomography

Ethical Approval

This study received its institutional review board (IRB) approval at Saint Louis University 1/17/2018, Protocol #28746.




Publication History

Received: 01 February 2021

Accepted: 16 November 2021

Article published online:
03 January 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Deehan DJ, Cawston TE. The biology of integration of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (07) 889-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF. Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75 (12) 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel differs at the tunnel entrance versus the tunnel exit: an effect of graft-tunnel motion?. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (11) 1790-1800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Greis PE, Burks RT, Bachus K, Luker MG. The influence of tendon length and fit on the strength of a tendon-bone tunnel complex. A biomechanical and histologic study in the dog. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (04) 493-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mariscalco MW, Magnussen RA, Mitchell J. et al. How much hamstring graft needs to be in the femoral tunnel? A MOON cohort study. Eur Orthop Traumatol 2015; 6 (01) 9-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Qi L, Chang C, Jian L, Xin T, Gang Z. Effect of varying the length of soft-tissue grafts in the tibial tunnel in a canine anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction model. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (06) 825-833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yamazaki S, Yasuda K, Tomita F, Minami A, Tohyama H. The effect of intraosseous graft length on tendon-bone healing in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using flexor tendon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (11) 1086-1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zantop T, Ferretti M, Bell KM, Brucker PU, Gilbertson L, Fu FH. Effect of tunnel-graft length on the biomechanics of anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees: intra-articular study in a goat model. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (11) 2158-2166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Edwards A, Bull AM, Amis AA. The attachments of the fiber bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament: an anatomic study. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (03) 284-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Moorman III CT, Murphy Zane MS, Bansai S. et al. Tibial insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament: a sagittal plane analysis using gross, histologic, and radiographic methods. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (03) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tajima G, Nozaki M, Iriuchishima T. et al. Morphology of the tibial insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (04) 859-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Takahashi M, Doi M, Abe M, Suzuki D, Nagano A. Anatomical study of the femoral and tibial insertions of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of human anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (05) 787-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Girgis FG, Marshall JL, Monajem A. The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint. Anatomical, functional and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975; (106) 216-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee YS, Ra HJ, Ahn JH, Ha JK, Kim JG. Posterior cruciate ligament tibial insertion anatomy and implications for tibial tunnel placement. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (02) 182-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Inderster A, Benedetto KP, Klestil T, Künzel KH, Gaber O. Fiber orientation of posterior cruciate ligament: an experimental morphological and functional study, Part 2. Clin Anat 1995; 8 (05) 315-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Racanelli JA, Drez Jr D. Posterior cruciate ligament tibial attachment anatomy and radiographic landmarks for tibial tunnel placement in PCL reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1994; 10 (05) 546-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sheps DM, Otto D, Fernhout M. The anatomic characteristics of the tibial insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (07) 820-825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fanelli GC, Orcutt DR, Edson CJ. The multiple-ligament injured knee: evaluation, treatment, and results. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (04) 471-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moatshe G, Slette EL, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF. Intertunnel relationships in the tibia during reconstruction of multiple knee ligaments: how to avoid tunnel convergence. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (11) 2864-2869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Johannsen AM, Anderson CJ, Wijdicks CA, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel positioning in posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (01) 35-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Makino A, Costa-Paz M, Aponte-Tinao L, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL. Popliteal artery laceration during arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (11) 1396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kim SJ, Choi CH, Kim HS. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2004; 20 (Suppl. 02) 149-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim SJ, Park IS. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament using tibial-inlay and double-bundle technique. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (10) 1271
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mariani PP, Margheritini F. Full arthroscopic inlay reconstruction of posterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (11) 1038-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Osti M, Hierzer D, Seibert FJ, Benedetto KP. The arthroscopic all-inside tibial-inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: medium-term functional results and complication rate. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (03) 238-243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Salata MJ, Sekiya JK. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction: a surgical technique that may influence rehabilitation. Sports Health 2011; 3 (01) 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar