Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 26, Issue 2 , Pages 202-213, February 2010

Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Kinematics and Knee Flexion Angle–Graft Tension Relation

  • Patrick J. Murray, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Clarkstown Orthopedics, West Nyack, New York, U.S.A.
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Patrick J. Murray, M.D., Clarkstown Orthopedics, 2 Crosfield Ave, Ste 422, West Nyack, NY 10994, U.S.A.
  • ,
  • Jerry W. Alexander, B.S.

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Orthopedic Research and Education, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
  • ,
  • Jonathan E. Gold, B.S.

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Orthopedic Research and Education, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
  • ,
  • Kurt D. Icenogle, B.A.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
  • ,
  • Philip C. Noble, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
  • ,
  • Walter R. Lowe, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

Received 9 January 2009; accepted 9 July 2009. published online 11 January 2010.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the bundle tension curves and resultant knee kinematics between 2 tensioning protocols in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed in 7 male cadaveric knees. Each graft was tensioned to 22 N under 2 conditions: (1) both bundles tensioned at 20° of knee flexion (20/20 protocol) or (2) posterolateral (PL) bundle tensioned at 15° and anteromedial (AM) bundle at 45° (45/15 protocol). Knee kinematics were recorded in response to anterior and combined rotatory loads in the intact, ACL-deficient, and reconstructed states. Bundle tension was recorded dynamically with knee motion and during each loading test.

Results

Tensioning both bundles at 20° of knee flexion resulted in a reciprocal bundle tension pattern that was not statistically different; the PL bundle tension was greater than the AM bundle tension in full extension, and the AM bundle tension was greater than the PL bundle tension from 25° to 120°. In the second tensioning protocol, the AM bundle tension was significantly greater than the PL bundle tension at all flexion angles. Both tensioning protocols restored normal knee kinematics.

Conclusions

Bundle-tensioning protocol is a variable that has a significant effect on the bundle-loading patterns in double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The 20/20 protocol resulted in AM and PL bundle–loading patterns that were equivalent during dynamic testing, whereas the 45/15 protocol led to excessive tension in the AM bundle in full extension. We recommend equal tensioning of both bundles with the knee at 20° of flexion to restore relatively normal tension curves in each bundle and to avoid excessive stress on the AM bundle.

Clinical Relevance

In double-bundle ACL reconstruction, there is no consensus regarding bundle-tensioning protocols. This study provides data on the individual bundle tension curves that result from 2 commonly used tensioning protocols. These data will assist clinicians as the technique and application of double-bundle ACL reconstruction move forward.

 

 The authors report no conflict of interest.

PII: S0749-8063(09)00613-6

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.014

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 26, Issue 2 , Pages 202-213, February 2010