Higher Incidence of Radiographic Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis With Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Positioning Compared With Anteromedial Femoral Tunnel Positioning During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2022
Higher Incidence of Radiographic Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis With Transtibial Femoral Tunnel Positioning Compared With Anteromedial Femoral Tunnel Positioning During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Anteromedial (AM) femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been reported by some authors to yield superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with the transtibial (TT) approach; however, differences in the subsequent rates of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) are not clear.
Purpose:
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the influence of femoral tunnel positioning during primary ACLR on the development of radiographic PTOA.
Study Design:
Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Methods:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-2019), and MEDLINE (1980-2019) were queried for all studies describing the development of PTOA after TT or AM ACLR. Data pertaining to patient demographics, ACLR technique, and radiographic PTOA were extracted. A meta-analysis utilizing the DerSimonian-Laird method for random effects was used to compare the weighted proportion of PTOA after ACLR between the TT and AM approaches.
Results:
There were 16 studies identified for inclusion with a total of 1546 patients. The mean follow-up across all studies was 10.9 years (range, 5.4-17.8 years). The mean follow-up in the AM and TT groups was 10.8 years (range, 5.4-17 years) and 11.4 years (range, 6-17.8 years), respectively. A total of 783 (50.6%) patients underwent TT ACLR. Of these patients, 401 (weighted mean, 49.3%) developed radiographic PTOA. A total of 763 (49.4%) patients underwent AM ACLR. Of these patients, 166 (mean, 21.8%) went on to develop radiographic PTOA. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly greater rate of PTOA after ACLR using a TT technique compared with an AM technique overall (49.3% vs 25.4%, respectively; P < .001) and when studies were stratified by 5- to 10-year (53.7% vs 14.2%, respectively; P < .001) and greater than 10-year (45.6% vs 31.2%, respectively; P < .0001) follow-up.
Conclusion:
TT ACLR was associated with higher overall rates of radiographic PTOA compared with the AM ACLR approach. The rates of radiographic PTOA after ACLR with a TT approach were also significantly higher than using an AM approach when stratified by length of follow-up (5- to 10-year and >10-year follow-up).
AhnJHKimJGWangJHJungCHLimHC. Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone: an analysis of the factors affecting the development of osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(8):1114-1123.
2.
AkpinarBThorhauerEIrrgangJJ, et al. Alteration of knee kinematics after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is dependent on associated meniscal injury. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(5):1158-1165.
3.
Alentorn-GeliESamitierGAlvarezPSteinbacherGCugatR. Anteromedial portal versus transtibial drilling techniques in ACL reconstruction: a blinded cross-sectional study at two- to five-year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):747-754.
4.
BareniusBPonzerSShalabiA, et al. Increased risk of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 14-year follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42(5):1049-1057.
5.
BediAMusahlVSteuberV, et al. Transtibial versus anteromedial portal reaming in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an anatomic and biomechanical evaluation of surgical technique. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(3):380-390.
6.
BernardMHertelPHornungHCierpinskiT. Femoral insertion of the ACL: radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg. 1997; 10(1):14-21.
7.
BjornssonHSamuelssonKSundemoD, et al. A randomized controlled trial with mean 16-year follow-up comparing hamstring and patellar tendon autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(9):2304-2313.
8.
ChalmersPNMallNAColeBJ, et al. Anteromedial versus transtibial tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(7):1235-1242.
9.
ChenTZhangPChenJHuaYChenS. Long-term outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using either synthetics with remnant preservation or hamstring autografts: a 10-year longitudinal study. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(12):2739-2750.
10.
ChenYChuaKHSinghA, et al. Outcome of single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the anteromedial versus the transtibial technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(9):1784-1794.
11.
CinqueMEDornanGJChahlaJMoatsheGLaPradeRF. High rates of osteoarthritis develop after anterior cruciate ligament surgery: an analysis of 4108 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(8):2011-2019.
12.
CristianiRMikkelsenCEdmanG, et al. Age, gender, quadriceps strength and hop test performance are the most important factors affecting the achievement of a patient-acceptable symptom state after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(2):369-380.
13.
Di StasiSLLogerstedtDGardinierESSnyder-MacklerL. Gait patterns differ between ACL-reconstructed athletes who pass return-to-sport criteria and those who fail. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1310-1318.
14.
ElveosMMDrogsetJOEngebretsenL, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft with and without a ligament augmentation device: a 25-year follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(11):2325967118808778.
15.
FithianDCPaxtonEWStoneML, et al. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(3):335-346.
16.
ForsytheBLansdownDZukeWA, et al. Dynamic 3-dimensional mapping of isometric anterior cruciate ligament attachment sites on the tibia and femur: is anatomic also isometric?Arthroscopy. 2018;34(8):2466-2475.
17.
FranceschiFPapaliaRRizzelloG, et al. Anteromedial portal versus transtibial drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: any clinical relevance? A retrospective comparative study. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1330-1337.
18.
GoldsmithMTJanssonKSSmithSD, et al. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: an in vitro study. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41(7):1595-1604.
19.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.
20.
JadadARMooreRACarrollD, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.
21.
JanssenRPdu MeeAWvan ValkenburgJSalaHATsengCM. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with 4-strand hamstring autograft and accelerated rehabilitation: a 10-year prospective study on clinical results, knee osteoarthritis and its predictors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(9):1977-1988.
22.
KarikisIDesaiNSernertNRostgard-ChristensenLKartusJ. Comparison of anatomic double- and single-bundle techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts: a prospective randomized study with 5-year clinical and radiographic follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(5):1225-1236.
23.
KeaysSLBullock-SaxtonJEKeaysACNewcombePABullockMI. A 6-year follow-up of the effect of graft site on strength, stability, range of motion, function, and joint degeneration after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendon graft. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(5):729-739.
24.
KesslerMABehrendHHenzS, et al. Function, osteoarthritis and activity after ACL-rupture: 11 years follow-up results of conservative versus reconstructive treatment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(5):442-448.
25.
KopfSForsytheBWongAK, et al. Transtibial ACL reconstruction technique fails to position drill tunnels anatomically in vivo 3D CT study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2200-2207.
26.
KraeutlerMJWolskyRMVidalAFBravmanJT. Anatomy and biomechanics of the native and reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament: surgical implications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(5):438-445.
27.
LecoqFAParientiJJMurisonJ, et al. Graft choice and the incidence of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a causal analysis from a cohort of 541 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(12):2842-2850.
28.
LeeDHKimHJAhnHSBinSI. Comparison of femoral tunnel length and obliquity between transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in surgical techniques in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):142-150.
29.
MatsumotoAYoshiyaSMuratsuH, et al. A comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and bone-hamstring tendon-bone autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(2):213-219.
30.
MehlJOttoABaldinoJB, et al. The ACL-deficient knee and the prevalence of meniscus and cartilage lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42017076897). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019;139(6):819-841.
31.
MeuffelsDEFavejeeMMVissersMM, et al. Ten year follow-up study comparing conservative versus operative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament ruptures: a matched-pair analysis of high level athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(5):347-351.
32.
MinguellJNunezJHReverte-VinaixaMM, et al. Femoral tunnel position in chronic anterior cruciate ligament rupture reconstruction: randomized controlled trial comparing anatomic, biomechanical and clinical outcomes. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(7):1501-1509.
33.
MullerBYabroudiMALynchA, et al. Defining thresholds for the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC subjective knee form and KOOS for patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(11):2820-2826.
34.
NwachukwuBUChangBVoletiPB, et al. Preoperative Short Form Health Survey score is predictive of return to play and minimal clinically important difference at a minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45(12):2784-2790.
35.
OstiMKrawinkelAOstermannMHoffelnerTBenedettoKP. Femoral and tibial graft tunnel parameters after transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(9):2250-2258.
36.
PietriniSDZieglerCGAndersonCJ, et al. Radiographic landmarks for tunnel positioning in double-bundle ACL reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(5):792-800.
37.
PinczewskiLALymanJSalmonLJ, et al. A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(4):564-574.
38.
RisbergMAOiestadBEGundersonR, et al. Changes in knee osteoarthritis, symptoms, and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 20-year prospective follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(5):1215-1224.
39.
SajovicMStrahovnikADernovsekMZSkazaK. Quality of life and clinical outcome comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an 11-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(10):2161-2169.
40.
ShinYSRoKHLeeJHLeeDH. Location of the femoral tunnel aperture in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of the transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2533-2539.
41.
SongEKKimSKLimHASeonJK. Comparisons of tunnel-graft angle and tunnel length and position between transtibial and transportal techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2014;38(11):2357-2362.
42.
SongEKSeonJKYimJH, et al. Progression of osteoarthritis after double- and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2340-2346.
43.
ThomsonAEinarssonEHansenCBleakleyCWhiteleyR. Marked asymmetry in vertical force (but not contact times) during running in ACL reconstructed athletes <9 months post-surgery despite meeting functional criteria for return to sport. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21(9):890-893.
44.
TsoukasDFotopoulosVBasdekisGMakridisKG. No difference in osteoarthritis after surgical and non-surgical treatment of ACL-injured knees after 10 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(9):2953-2959.
45.
van TunenJACDell’IsolaAJuhlC, et al. Association of malalignment, muscular dysfunction, proprioception, laxity and abnormal joint loading with tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):273.
46.
VegaJFJacobsCAStrnadGJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state to identify clinically successful anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(5):1159-1167.
47.
VenosaMDelcoglianoMPaduaRAlvitiFDelcoglianoA. Femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial portal versus transtibial technique. A randomized clinical trial. Joints. 2017;5(1):34-38.
48.
ViechtbauerW. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48.
49.
WangHFleischliJEHutchinsonIDZhengNN. Knee moment and shear force are correlated with femoral tunnel orientation after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2377-2385.
50.
WangHFleischliJEZhengNN. Transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: outcomes of knee joint kinematics during walking. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(8):1847-1856.
51.
WebsterKEFellerJAHartnettNLeighWBRichmondAK. Comparison of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):83-90.
52.
WrightJGSwiontkowskiMFHeckmanJD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(1):1-3.
53.
YauWPFokAWYeeDK. Tunnel positions in transportal versus transtibial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a case-control magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(6):1047-1052.
54.
ZieglerCGPietriniSDWesterhausBD, et al. Arthroscopically pertinent landmarks for tunnel positioning in single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(4):743-752.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
