The ITT showed large contributions in restraining anterior subluxation of the lateral tibial plateau and tibial internal rotation, which constitute pathological laxity in ALRI. In cases with ALRI, an ITT injury should be suspected and kept in mind if an extra-articular procedure is performed.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of each of the ACL and medial ligament structures in resisting anteromedial rotatory instability (AMRI) loads applied in vitro. Methods Twelve knees were tested using a robotic system. It imposed loads simulating clinical laxity tests at 0° to 90° flexion: ±90 N anterior-posterior force, ±8 Nm varus-valgus moment, and ±5 Nm internal-external rotation, and the tibial displacements were measured in the intact knee. The ACL and individual medial structures-retinaculum, superficial and deep medial collateral ligament (sMCL and dMCL), and posteromedial capsule with oblique ligament (POL + PMC)-were sectioned sequentially. The tibial displacements were reapplied after each cut and the reduced loads required allowed the contribution of each structure to be calculated. Results For anterior translation, the ACL was the primary restraint, resisting 63-77% of the drawer force across 0° to 90°, the sMCL contributing 4-7%. For posterior translation, the POL + PMC contributed 10% of the restraint in extension; other structures were not significant. For valgus load, the sMCL was the primary restraint (40-54%) across 0° to 90°, the dMCL 12%, and POL + PMC 16% in extension. For external rotation, the dMCL resisted 23-13% across 0° to 90°, the sMCL 13-22%, and the ACL 6-9%. Conclusion The dMCL is the largest medial restraint to tibial external rotation in extension. Therefore, following a combined ACL + MCL injury, AMRI may persist if there is inadequate healing of both the sMCL and dMCL, and MCL deficiency increases the risk of ACL graft failure.

Controlling tibial position appears important when tensioning anterolateral tenodeses. However, the identified changes were subtle and may not be clinically significant in a fully loaded knee.

No abstract

PurposeDouble-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction may offer kinematic restoration superior to anatomic single bundle (SB), but it remains technically challenging. The femoral attachment site has the most effect on ACL graft isometry, so a simplified three-socket (3S) construct which still uses two sockets to cover the femoral ACL attachment is attractive. It was hypothesised that ACL reconstruction using three- and four-socket techniques would more closely restore native knee kinematics compared to anatomic two-socket (SB) surgery.MethodsNine cadaveric knees were used to evaluate the kinematics of ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, anatomic SB, three-socket, and DB arthroscopic ACL reconstructions. Suspensory fixation was used, and grafts were tensioned to match the anterior draw of the intact knee at 20°. A six-degree-of-freedom robotic system measured knee laxity under 90 N anterior tibial force and rotational laxity under 5 N-m torque. Combined moments were applied to simulate the pivot-shift subluxation: 4 N-m internal rotation and 8 N-m valgus.ResultsSignificant differences between reconstructions were not found during anterior tibial loading, apart from SB being more lax than DB at 60° flexion. All reconstructions produced comparable laxity to the intact state, apart from SB at 60°. Significant differences between reconstructions were not found at any flexion angle during tibial internal/external applied torques. Under combined loading, DB produced significantly less laxity than SB constructs apart from anterior tibial translation at 0° and internal rotation at 45°. 3S and DB were comparable to the native knee throughout.ConclusionAlthough 3S restored laxities to a similar extent to DB, significant superiority over SB surgery was not observed. Although statistically significant differences were found between SB and DB surgery during anterior tibial and simulated pivot-shift loading, both remained similar to the native knee. The clinical relevance is that this study did not support an ACL graft construct more complex than an anatomic single bundle.