Purpose Instability of the proximal tibioibular joint (PTFJ) can be treated with bicortical suspension (BCS) ixation. However, the ideal location, orientation, and coniguration to apply one or two BCS devices are not clear. Methods A inite-element model of the PTFJ was created from a female adult's CT dataset. Anterior and posterior ligaments at the PTFJ were modeled and suppressed to simulate stable and unstable joints. Fifty-six models simulated 56 device placements along guiding tunnel lines that connect eight entry locations on the ibular head to seven exit points on the anteromedial tibia. Doubling device stifness created 56 more models. Combing any two placements created 1176 double-device conigurations which were categorized to be crossed, divergent or parallel. Displacement of the ibular head relative to the ixed tibia under 100 N anterolateral and posteromedial forces was assessed. Results Diferent placements had 2.1-27.9 mm translation with 0.7-8.9° internal rotation under anterolateral loading, and 1.8-5.2 mm translation with 6.1-7.9° external rotation under posteromedial loading. More transverse and superior orientations were associated with smaller anterolateral translation; more posterior and superior entry locations were associated with smaller internal rotation. The median (IQR) reductions in anterolateral translation by doubling device stifness and by adding a second device were 0.8 (IQR 0.5-1.0) and 0.8 (IQR 0-6.1) mm, respectively. The type of double-device conigurations had no signiicant efect on ibular motion. Conclusion Surgeons should drill the guiding tunnel superiorly and transversely to ensure the optimal restoration of the PTFJ anterolateral stability.

Purpose:The purpose of this finite element analysis was to compare femoral tunnel length; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft bending angle; and peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area created by the transtibial, anteromedial portal (AMP), and hybrid transtibial techniques.Methods:Finite element analysis modeling was used to examine anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction models based on transtibial, AMP, and hybrid transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques. An evaluation of femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, peak graft stress, contact force, and contact area was done in comparison of these techniques.Results:The femoral tunnel created with the hybrid transtibial technique was 45.3 mm, which was 13.3% longer than that achieved with the AMP technique but 15.2% shorter than that with the transtibial technique. The femoral graft bending angle with the hybrid transtibial technique (105°) was less acute than that with the AMP technique (102°), but more acute than that with the transtibial technique (109°). At 11° knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial technique had 22% less femoral contact force, 21% less tibial contact force, 21% less graft tension than the AMP technique. Yet, the hybrid transtibial technique had 41% greater femoral contact force, 39% greater tibial contact force, 33% greater graft tension, and 6% greater graft von Mises stress than the transtibial technique. A similar trend was found for the anterior knee drawer test. At both 6-mm anterior tibial displacement and 11° knee flexion, the hybrid transtibial and AMP techniques had at least 51% more femoral contact area than the transtibial technique.Conclusion:This finite element analysis highlights that the hybrid transtibial technique is a true hybrid between the AMP and transtibial techniques for femoral tunnel drilling regarding femoral tunnel length, graft bending angle, and peak graft stress.