Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 21, 2026
Athymic Rat Model for Evaluation of Engineered Anterior Cruciate Ligament Grafts
Published on: March 26, 2015
Remnant-Preserving Tibial Tunnel Positioning Using Anatomic Landmarks in Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Hiroki Shimodaira1, Keiji Tensho1, Yusuke Akaoka1
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Matsumoto, Japan.
Purpose:
To assess (1) if 6 anatomic landmarks (ALs) could be arthroscopically confirmed with remnant preservation and (2) if creating tibial tunnels using these landmarks reduces individual variation and improves reproducibility in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed data of patients who chronologically underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction by either referencing the footprint after remnant dissection (non-AL group) or subsequently with the ALs (AL group). Using operative videos, 3 independent observers judged whether they could confirm 6 ALs (medial intercondylar ridge, medial and lateral intercondylar tubercles, anterior horn of lateral meniscus, Parsons' knob, and L-shaped ridge) in 20 patients randomly selected from the AL group. We then compared tunnel positions between the 2 groups, measured from the anterior and medial borders of the proximal tibia and expressed as percentage of the total depth and width of the proximal tibia using 3-dimensional computed tomography.
Results:
One hundred four patients (non-AL group, n = 54; AL group, n = 50) were included. All 6 ALs were arthroscopically confirmed in most cases (89.7% to 100%). The mean percentages of the anteroposterior (AP) depth for anteromedial (AM) tunnel, mediolateral (ML) width for AM tunnel, AP depth for posterolateral (PL) tunnel, and ML width for PL tunnel, respectively, were 27.8% ± 6.6%, 46.7% ± 2.8%, 41.4% ± 7.3%, and 46.1% ± 2.6% for the non-AL group and 30.7% ± 4.5%, 45.7% ± 2.2%, 45.2% ± 4.5%, and 46.9% ± 2.1% for the AL group, revealing significantly less variation in the AL group compared with the non-AL group, excluding the ML width of the PL tunnel (P = .007, .046, .002, .209, respectively).
Conclusions:
Six landmarks could be reliably confirmed in cases with remnant preservation, and creating tibial tunnels using these landmarks were reproducible and resulted in less individual variation.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
More Related Videos
08:30Surgical Retrieval, Isolation and In vitro Expansion of Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament-derived Cells for Tissue Engineering Applications
Published on: April 30, 2014
05:44Author Spotlight: Double Posteromedial Approach for Treating Posterior Cruciate Ligament Cysts
Published on: October 20, 2023