GUO Jia 1 , ZHANG Dongfang 1 , YANG Guodong 1 , QU Di 1 , ZHANG Jing 1 , QI Chao 2
  • 1. Qingdao College of Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong, 266073, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of Sports Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong, 266103, P. R. China;
QI Chao, Email: qichao2002@163.com
Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; femoral tunnel; medial collateral ligament; iatrogenic injury
10.7507/1002-1892.202208108
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective  To investigate whether the outlet of the femoral tunnel will cause iatrogenic injury to the medial collateral ligament (MCL) during posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) and estimate the safe angle of femoral tunnel placement. Methods Thirteen formaldehyde-soaked human knee joint specimens were used, 8 from men and 5 from women; the donors’ age ranged from 49 to 71 years, with an average of 61 years. First, the medial part of the femur was carefully dissected to clearly expose the region of the MCL course and attachment on the femoral medial aspect and to outline the anterior margin of the region with a marked line. The marked line divided the medial femoral condyle into an area with an MCL course and a bare bone area which is regarded relatively safe for no MCL course. Then, the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was cut to identify the femoral attachment of the PCL. After the knee joint was fixed at a 120° flexion angle, the process of femoral tunnel preparation for the PCL single-bundle reconstruction was simulated. The inside-out technique was used to drill the femoral tunnel from the PCL femoral footprint inside the knee joint with an orientation to exit the medial condyle of the femur, and the combination angle of the two planes, the axial plane and the coronal plane, was adapted to the process of drilling femoral tunnels at different orientations. The following 15 angle combinations were used in the study: 0°/30°, 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/30°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, 30°/30°, 30°/45°, 30°/60°, 45°/30°, 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, 60°/60° (axial/coronal). The positional relationship between the femoral tunnel outlet on the femoral medial condyle and the marked line was used to verify whether the tunnel drilling angle was a risk factor for MCL injury or not, and whether the shortest distance between the femoral exit center and the marked line was affected by the various angle combinations. Furthermore, the safe orientation of the femoral tunnel placement would estimated. Results When creating the femoral tunnel for PCLR, there was a risk of damage to the MCL caused by the tunnel outlet, and the incidence was from 0 to 100%; when the drilling angle of the axial plane was 0° and 15°, the incidence of MCL damage was from 69.23% to 100%. There was a significant difference in the incidence of MCL damage among femoral tunnels of 15 angle combinations (χ2=148.195, P<0.001). By comparison between groups, it was found that when drilling femoral tunnels at 5 combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal), the shortest distances between the tunnel exit and the marked line were significantly different than 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, and 30°/30° (axial/coronal) (P<0.05). Additionally, after comparing the median of the shortest distance with other groups, the outlets generated by these 5 angles were farther from the marked line and the posterior MCL. Conclusion The creation of the femoral tunnel in PCLR can cause iatrogenic MCL injury, and the risk is affected by the tunnel angle. To reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury, angle combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal) are recommended for preparing the femoral tunnel in PCLR.

Citation： GUO Jia, ZHANG Dongfang, YANG Guodong, QU Di, ZHANG Jing, QI Chao. Correlation analysis of femoral tunnel angle and medial collateral ligament injury in posterior cruciate ligament single-bundle reconstruction. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2022, 36(12): 1492-1499. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202208108 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Analgesic effect of a new “cocktail” of local infiltration analgesia after total hip arthroplasty—A prospective randomized controlled study

  • Next Article

    Comparison of screw implantation parameters between two approaches in capitolunate arthrodesis: an imaging analysis based on CT of the normal wrist