Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 10, 2025
Surgical Retrieval, Isolation and In vitro Expansion of Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament-derived Cells for Tissue Engineering Applications
Published on: April 30, 2014
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using cortical or anchor fixation with suture tape augmentation vs ACL
Lukas N Muench1, Daniel P Berthold1, Simon Archambault2
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UConn Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030, United States; Department of Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Germany.
Background:
The purpose was to compare knee kinematics in a cadaveric model of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using an adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspensory (AL-CSF) or independent bundle suture anchor fixation (IB-SAF) with suture tape augmentation to a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) ACL reconstruction.
Methods:
Twenty-seven cadaveric knees were randomly assigned to one of three surgical techniques: (1) ACL repair using the AL-CSF technique with suture tape augmentation, (2) ACL repair using the IB-SAF technique with suture tape augmentation, (3) ACL reconstruction using a BPTB autograft. Each specimen underwent three conditions according to the state of the ACL (native, proximal transection, repair/reconstruction) with each condition tested at four different angles of knee flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°). Anterior tibial translation (ATT) and internal tibial rotation (ITR) were evaluated using 3-dimensional motion tracking software.
Results:
ACL transection resulted in a significant increase in ATT and ITR when compared to the native state (P < 0.001, respectively). ACL repair with the AL-CSF or IB-SAF technique as well as BPTB reconstruction restored native ATT and ITR at all tested angles of knee flexion, while showing significantly less ATT at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° as well as significantly less ITR at 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion when compared to the ACL-deficient state. There were no significant differences in ATT and ITR between the three techniques utilized.
Conclusion:
ACL repair using the AL-CSF or IB-SAF technique with suture tape augmentation as well as BPTB ACL reconstruction each restored native anteroposterior and rotational laxity, without significant differences in knee kinematics between the three techniques utilized.
Level Of Evidence:
Controlled Laboratory Study.
