How to avoid collision between PCL and MCL femoral tunnels during a simultaneous reconstruction

Michele D'Arienzo, Lawrence Camarda, Emanuele Grassedonio, Michele Lauria

Risultato della ricerca: Other

6 Citazioni (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of femoral tunnel collisions between the medial collateral ligament (MCL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tunnels during a simultaneous PCL and MCL reconstruction.METHODS:Fourth generation medium and large synthetic femur bones were used. On each femur, a MCL tunnel and a PCL tunnel were reamed. The MCL tunnel was drilled at 0°, 20° and 40° of axial and coronal angulations. The PCL femoral tunnel was reamed to simulate two different tunnel directions that could be obtained through an inside-out and outside-in technique. Tunnels were filled with epoxy resin augmented with BaSO4, and a multidetector CT examination of each specimen was performed.RESULTS:High rate of tunnel collision (62.5 %) was found when the MCL femoral tunnel was reamed with a coronal angulation of 0° and 20°. The rate of tunnel collision significantly decreased (0 %) when the MCL tunnel was reamed proximally with a coronal angulation of 40°. No differences were found between the two PCL tunnel directions in terms of tunnel collision.CONCLUSION:The results of this study can help surgeons to better direct the femoral MCL tunnel in order to avoid a collision between femoral tunnels during a combined MCL and PCL reconstruction. In order to minimize such potential complications, the MCL tunnel should be created limiting the axial angulation and it should be drilled with a proximal angulation from 20° to 40°, depending on the medial condyle width.
Lingua originaleEnglish
PagineS49-S50
Numero di pagine2
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Posterior Cruciate Ligament
Collateral Ligaments
Thigh
Femur
Epoxy Resins
Bone and Bones

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cita questo

How to avoid collision between PCL and MCL femoral tunnels during a simultaneous reconstruction. / D'Arienzo, Michele; Camarda, Lawrence; Grassedonio, Emanuele; Lauria, Michele.

2014. S49-S50.

Risultato della ricerca: Other

@conference{8b4a96a63a0d4be0bb007e8dc3f7c937,
title = "How to avoid collision between PCL and MCL femoral tunnels during a simultaneous reconstruction",
abstract = "The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of femoral tunnel collisions between the medial collateral ligament (MCL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tunnels during a simultaneous PCL and MCL reconstruction.METHODS:Fourth generation medium and large synthetic femur bones were used. On each femur, a MCL tunnel and a PCL tunnel were reamed. The MCL tunnel was drilled at 0°, 20° and 40° of axial and coronal angulations. The PCL femoral tunnel was reamed to simulate two different tunnel directions that could be obtained through an inside-out and outside-in technique. Tunnels were filled with epoxy resin augmented with BaSO4, and a multidetector CT examination of each specimen was performed.RESULTS:High rate of tunnel collision (62.5 {\%}) was found when the MCL femoral tunnel was reamed with a coronal angulation of 0° and 20°. The rate of tunnel collision significantly decreased (0 {\%}) when the MCL tunnel was reamed proximally with a coronal angulation of 40°. No differences were found between the two PCL tunnel directions in terms of tunnel collision.CONCLUSION:The results of this study can help surgeons to better direct the femoral MCL tunnel in order to avoid a collision between femoral tunnels during a combined MCL and PCL reconstruction. In order to minimize such potential complications, the MCL tunnel should be created limiting the axial angulation and it should be drilled with a proximal angulation from 20° to 40°, depending on the medial condyle width.",
author = "Michele D'Arienzo and Lawrence Camarda and Emanuele Grassedonio and Michele Lauria",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
pages = "S49--S50",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - How to avoid collision between PCL and MCL femoral tunnels during a simultaneous reconstruction

AU - D'Arienzo, Michele

AU - Camarda, Lawrence

AU - Grassedonio, Emanuele

AU - Lauria, Michele

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of femoral tunnel collisions between the medial collateral ligament (MCL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tunnels during a simultaneous PCL and MCL reconstruction.METHODS:Fourth generation medium and large synthetic femur bones were used. On each femur, a MCL tunnel and a PCL tunnel were reamed. The MCL tunnel was drilled at 0°, 20° and 40° of axial and coronal angulations. The PCL femoral tunnel was reamed to simulate two different tunnel directions that could be obtained through an inside-out and outside-in technique. Tunnels were filled with epoxy resin augmented with BaSO4, and a multidetector CT examination of each specimen was performed.RESULTS:High rate of tunnel collision (62.5 %) was found when the MCL femoral tunnel was reamed with a coronal angulation of 0° and 20°. The rate of tunnel collision significantly decreased (0 %) when the MCL tunnel was reamed proximally with a coronal angulation of 40°. No differences were found between the two PCL tunnel directions in terms of tunnel collision.CONCLUSION:The results of this study can help surgeons to better direct the femoral MCL tunnel in order to avoid a collision between femoral tunnels during a combined MCL and PCL reconstruction. In order to minimize such potential complications, the MCL tunnel should be created limiting the axial angulation and it should be drilled with a proximal angulation from 20° to 40°, depending on the medial condyle width.

AB - The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of femoral tunnel collisions between the medial collateral ligament (MCL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tunnels during a simultaneous PCL and MCL reconstruction.METHODS:Fourth generation medium and large synthetic femur bones were used. On each femur, a MCL tunnel and a PCL tunnel were reamed. The MCL tunnel was drilled at 0°, 20° and 40° of axial and coronal angulations. The PCL femoral tunnel was reamed to simulate two different tunnel directions that could be obtained through an inside-out and outside-in technique. Tunnels were filled with epoxy resin augmented with BaSO4, and a multidetector CT examination of each specimen was performed.RESULTS:High rate of tunnel collision (62.5 %) was found when the MCL femoral tunnel was reamed with a coronal angulation of 0° and 20°. The rate of tunnel collision significantly decreased (0 %) when the MCL tunnel was reamed proximally with a coronal angulation of 40°. No differences were found between the two PCL tunnel directions in terms of tunnel collision.CONCLUSION:The results of this study can help surgeons to better direct the femoral MCL tunnel in order to avoid a collision between femoral tunnels during a combined MCL and PCL reconstruction. In order to minimize such potential complications, the MCL tunnel should be created limiting the axial angulation and it should be drilled with a proximal angulation from 20° to 40°, depending on the medial condyle width.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/121095

M3 - Other

SP - S49-S50

ER -