AJSM
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 December 19, 2005, doi:10.1177/0363546505281809
This version was published on April 1, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/4/604    most recent
0363546505281809v1
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 Markolf, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by McAllister, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Markolf, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by McAllister, D. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Knee
Right arrow Operative
Right arrow Biomechanics
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 34:604-611 (2006)
© 2006 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Where Should the Femoral Tunnel of a Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Be Placed to Best Restore Anteroposterior Laxity and Ligament Forces?

Keith L. Markolf, PhD*, Brian T. Feeley, MD, Steven R. Jackson and David R. McAllister, MD

From the Biomechanics Research Section, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California

* Address correspondence to Keith L. Markolf, PhD, Biomechanics Research Section, University of California at Los Angeles Rehabilitation Center, Room 21-67, 1000 Veteran Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6902 (e-mail: kmarkolf{at}mednet.ucla.edu).

Background: Objective results of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are often less than satisfactory, with many patients exhibiting excessive posterior laxity.

Hypothesis: Changes in the position of the femoral tunnel within the posterior cruciate ligament’s femoral footprint will significantly affect anteroposterior laxities and graft forces.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: The posterior cruciate ligament’s femoral origin was mechanically isolated in 13 fresh-frozen knee specimens, and the bone cap containing the ligament’s insertion was attached to a load cell that recorded resultant force during tibial loading tests. Anteroposterior laxity (at +mn; 200 N applied force) was also measured. Cast acrylic replicas of the bone cap were fabricated, with tunnels placed in anterolateral, central, and posteromedial regions of the footprint. A graft reconstruction was tested in each tunnel.

Results: Mean laxities with the anterolateral tunnel were +0.9 mm to +1.7 mm greater than normal between 0° and 45° of flexion. Mean laxities with the posteromedial tunnel were –2.4 mm to –3.7 mm less than normal between 10° and 45° of flexion. Mean laxities with the central tunnel were not significantly different from intact knee values, except at 0° (0.9 mm greater). Mean graft forces with the anterolateral tunnel were normal for most modes of loading, whereas there were significant increases in graft forces with the posteromedial and central tunnels.

Conclusion: The anterolateral tunnel reproduced normal posterior cruciate ligament force profiles but produced a knee that was more lax than normal between 0° and 45° of flexion. The central tunnel best matched intact knee laxities, but graft forces were higher than posterior cruciate ligament forces between 0° and 45° of flexion. The posteromedial tunnel overconstrained anteroposterior laxity approximately 2 to 4 mm between 0° and 45° of flexion and generated higher graft forces in the same flexion range.

Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that a posteromedial tunnel should not be used for single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Key Words: posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) • knee ligament biomechanics • PCL reconstruction • PCL graft forces




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J Sports MedHome page
K. L. Markolf, B. R. Graves, S. M. Sigward, S. R. Jackson, and D. R. McAllister
How Well Do Anatomical Reconstructions of the Posterolateral Corner Restore Varus Stability to the Posterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knee?
Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2007; 35(7): 1117 - 1122.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.