Skip to main content
Log in

The sagittal cutting plane affects evaluation of the femoral bone tunnel position on three-dimensional computed tomography after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate how the femoral sagittal cutting plane affects evaluation of the bone tunnel position after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the quadrant method in three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) imaging.

Methods

Thirty patients who underwent primary anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction and CT 2 weeks after surgery were enrolled. Three sagittal cutting planes with respect to the condylar axis were created using the CT images: at the top of the intercondylar notch (C-plane), 5% medial (M-plane), and 5% lateral (L-plane). The center of the bone tunnel position regarding depth and height of the anteromedial (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB) were quantitatively evaluated using the quadrant method on the three different planes.

Results

The mean depths of AMB and PLB were 27.4 ± 4.4% and 39.7 ± 5.1%, 27.0 ± 4.2% and 37.6 ± 4.9%, and 27.4 ± 4.5% and 38.5 ± 6.0%, at the M, C and L planes, respectively. The mean heights of AMB and PLB were 30.8 ± 6.3% and 56.2 ± 5.6%, 30.4 ± 6.2% and 56.6 ± 5.6%, and 25.4 ± 7.0% and 52.9 ± 6.9% at the M, C, and L planes, respectively. Both AMB and PLB bone tunnels were evaluated as higher positions in the L-plane than the C-plane (p < 0.01, p = 0.02, respectively) and M-plane (p < 0.01, p = 0.04, respectively), but there were no significant differences between the C-plane and M-plane (n.s.). There was no significant difference in the anteroposterior direction for all planes.

Conclusion

In evaluations of the bone tunnel position with the quadrant method using three-dimensional CT, the bone tunnel position depends on the femoral sagittal cutting plane. A consistent evaluation method should be used when evaluating the bone tunnel position after ACL reconstruction to enable correct evaluation clinically.

Level of evidence

Case–control study, Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Abreu-e-Silva GM, de Oliveira MHGCN, Maranhão GS, de Deligne LMC, Pfeilsticker RM, Novais ENV, Nunes TA, de Andrade MAP (2015) Three-dimensional computed tomography evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament footprint for anatomic single-bundle reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:770–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aglietti P, Buzzi R, Giron F, Simeone AJV, Zaccherotti G (1997) Arthroscopic-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the central third patellar tendon: a 5-8-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 5:138–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson AF, Snyder RB, Lipscomb AB (2001) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 29:272–279

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bernard M, Hertel P, Hornung H, Cierpinski T (1997) Femoral insertion of the ACL. Radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg 10:14–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards A, Bull AMJ, Amis AA (2008) The attachments of the anteromedial and posterolateral fibre bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament : Part 2: Femoral attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Forsythe B, Kopf S, Wong AK, Martins CAQ, Anderst W, Tashman S, Fu FH (2010) The location of femoral and tibial tunnels in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction analyzed by three-dimensional computed tomography models. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 92:1418–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fu FH, Bennett CH, Ma CB, Menetrey J, Lattermann C (2000) Current concepts current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction part II. Operative procedures and clinical correlations. Am J Sport Med 28:124–130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Geng Y, Gai P (2018) Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Iriuchishima T, Goto B, Ryu K, Fu FH (2019) The Blumensaat’s line morphology influences to the femoral tunnel position in anatomical ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:3638–3643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Iriuchishima T, Ryu K, Aizawa S, Fu FH (2016) Blumensaat’s line is not always straight: morphological variations of the lateral wall of the femoral intercondylar notch. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:2752–2757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Iwasaki K, Inoue M, Kasahara Y, Tsukuda K, Kawahara H, Yokota I, Kondo E, Iwasaki N, Yasuda K (2019) Inclination of Blumensaat’s line influences on the accuracy of the quadrant method in evaluation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05619-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kambara S, Nakayama H, Yamaguchi M, Matsumoto A, Sasaki K, Kashiwa K, Iseki T, Yoshiya S (2017) Comparison of transportal and outside-in techniques for posterolateral femoral tunnel drilling in double-bundle ACL reconstruction -three-dimensional CT analysis of bone tunnel geometry. J Orthop Sci 22:481–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim JG, Wang JH, Lim HC, Ahn JH (2012) Femoral graft bending angle and femoral tunnel geometry of transportal and outside-in techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vivo 3-dimensional computed tomography analysis. Arthroscopy 28:1682–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee JK, Lee S, Seong SC, Lee MC (2015) Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament insertion sites: comparison of plain radiography and three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging to anatomic dissection. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2297–2305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lertwanich P, Martins CAQ, Asai S, Ingham SJM, Smolinski P, Fu FH (2011) Anterior cruciate ligament tunnel position measurement reliability on 3-dimensional reconstructed computed tomography. Arthroscopy 27:391–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lorenz S, Elser F, Mitterer M, Obst T, Imhoff AB (2009) Radiologic evaluation of the insertion sites of the 2 functional bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Am J Sports Med 37:2368–2376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mochizuki Y, Kaneko T, Kawahara K, Toyoda S, Kono N, Hada M, Ikegami H, Musha Y (2018) The quadrant method measuring four points is as a reliable and accurate as the quadrant method in the evaluation after anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:2389–2394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Niki Y, Nagai K, Harato K, Suda Y, Nakamura M, Matsumoto M (2017) Effects of femoral bone tunnel characteristics on graft-bending angle in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of the outside-in and transportal techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:1191–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reynaud O, Batailler C, Lording T, Lustig S, Servien E, Neyret P (2017) Three dimensionalCT analysis of femoral tunnel position after ACL reconstruction. A prospective study of one hundred and thirty five cases. Int Orthop 41:2313–2319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sim JA, Kim JM, Lee S, Bae JY, Seon JK (2017) Comparison of tunnel variability between trans-portal and outside-in techniques in ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:1227–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sirleo L, Innocenti M, Innocenti M, Civinini R, Carulli C, Matassi F (2018) Post-operative 3D CT feedback improves accuracy and precision in the learning curve of anatomic ACL femoral tunnel placement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:468–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tomihara T, Hashimoto Y, Taniuchi M, Shimada N (2015) Relationship between femoral tunnel location and graft bending angle in outside-in and transportal technique for ACL double bundle reconstruction in 3D-CT study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:839–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Trojani C, Sbihi A, Djian P, Potel J-F, Hulet C, Jouve F, Bussière C, Ehkirch F-P, Burdin G, Dubrana F, Beaufils P, Franceschi J-P, Chassaing V, Colombet P, Neyret P (2011) Causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and influence of meniscectomies after revision. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:196–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Venosa M, Delcogliano M, Padua R, Alviti F, Delcogliano A (2017) Femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial portal versus transtibial technique-a randomized clinical trial. Joints 5:34–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Dunn WR, Haas AK, Allen CR, Cooper DE, DeBerardino TM, Lantz BA, Mann BJ, Stuart MJ (2010) Descriptive epidemiology of the multicenter ACL revision study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med 38:1979–1986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yahagi Y, Iriuchishima T, Horaguchi T, Suruga M, Tokuhashi Y, Aizawa S (2017) The importance of Blumensaat’s line morphology for accurate femoral ACL footprint evaluation using the quadrant method. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:455–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zantop T, Diermann N, Schumacher T, Schanz S, Fu FH, Petersen W (2008) Anatomical and nonanatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Importance of femoral tunnel location on knee kinematics. Am J Sports Med 36:678–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zantop T, Wellmann M, Fu FH, Petersen W (2008) Tunnel positioning of anteromedial and posterolateral bundles in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anatomic and radiographic findings. Am J Sports Med 36:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Japan Sports Medicine Foundation for grant support and Editage for English correction.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

NM, DA, TM, and RK contributed to the study concept and design. NM, DA, YH, and TM contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. NM, DA, and TM drafted the article and NM, DA, TM and RK critically revised the article for important intellectual content. All authors had final approval of the version to be submitted for publication. NM, DA, and RK agreed to be held accountable for all aspects of the work to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately addressed.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takehiko Matsushita.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts to disclose.

Funding

This study was supported by the Japan Sports Medicine Foundation.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by institutional review board (ID No. B190055) from Kobe University ethics committee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miyaji, N., Araki, D., Hoshino, Y. et al. The sagittal cutting plane affects evaluation of the femoral bone tunnel position on three-dimensional computed tomography after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 398–404 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05963-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05963-0

Keywords

Navigation