Imperial College London



Anterolateral tenodesis or anterolateral ligament complex reconstruction: effect of flexion angle at graft fixation when combined with ACL reconstructionEivind Inderhaug MD PhD 1, Joanna M Stephen PhD 2,3, Andy Williams FRCS(Orth) 2, Andrew A Amis FREng, DSc 3,4.1: Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway2: Fortius Clinic, London, UK3: Biomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, UK.4: Musculoskeletal Surgery Group, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London School of Medicine, London UK.Study performed at Imperial College London.Correspondence to: Prof Andrew Amis, Biomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK; a.amis@imperial.ac.uk.Acknowledgements:Dr Inderhaug was supported by a fellowship grant from the Bergen Regional Health Authority. Dr Stephen was supported by the Fortius Clinic. The laboratory work was supported by a grant, euipment loan and donation of surgical devices from Smith & Nephew Ltd, which was paid to a research account of Imperial College London. The authors also thank Dr Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet, of Lyon, France, for visiting the laboratory to demonstrate his surgical methods; he also provided the illustrations of the surgical procedures (Figures 2 and 3).Blinded text in manuscript:Line 125: The ethics permit: ICHTB HTA licence 12275, REC Wales 12/WA/0196.Line 126: tissue bank: Science Crae, Phoenix, AZ, USA.ABSTRACT:Background: Despite numerous technical descriptions of anterolateral procedures, there is limited knowledge regarding the effect of knee flexion angle during graft fixation. Purpose: To determine the effect of knee flexion angle during graft fixation on tibiofemoral joint kinematics for a modified Lemaire tenodesis, or an anterolateral ligament complex reconstruction, combined with ACL reconstruction.Study design: Controlled laboratory study.Methods: Twelve cadaveric knees were mounted in a test rig with kinematics recorded from 0° - 90°. Loads applied to the tibia were: 90-N anterior translation, 5-Nm internal tibial rotation, and combined 90-N anterior force and 5-Nm internal rotation. Intact, ACL-deficient and combined ACL plus anterolateral-deficient states were tested, and then ACL reconstruction was performed and testing was repeated. Thereafter modified Lemaire tenodeses and anterolateral ligament procedures with graft fixation at 0°, 30° and 60° knee flexion and 20-N graft tension were performed combined with the ACL reconstruction - and repeat testing was performed throughout. Repeated-measures ANOVA and Bonferrroni-adjusted t tests were used for statistical analysis.Results: In combined ACL and anterolateral-deficiency, isolated ACL reconstruction left residual laxity for both anterior translation and internal rotation. Anterior translation was restored for all combinations of ACL and anterolateral procedures. The combined ACL reconstruction and ALL procedure restored intact knee kinematics when fixed in full extension, but when fixed in 30° and 60° left residual laxity in internal rotation (P=0.043). The combined ACL reconstruction and modified Lemaire procedure restored internal rotation regardless of knee flexion angle at graft fixation. When comparing the combined ACL reconstruction and lateral procedure states to the ACL-only reconstructed state, a significant reduction in internal rotation laxity was seen with the modified Lemaire tenodesis, but not with the ALL procedure.Conclusion: In a combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee the modified Lemaire tenodesis combined with ACL reconstruction restored normal laxities at all angles of flexion for graft fixation (0°, 30° or 60°), with 20-N tension. The combined ACL and ALL procedure restored intact knee kinematics when tensioned in full extension. Clinical relevance: In combined anterolateral procedure plus intraarticular ACL reconstruction, the knee flexion angle is important when fixing the graft. A modified Lemaire procedure restored intact knee laxities when fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° flexion. The ALL procedure restored normal laxities only when fixed in full extension. Key terms: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, ACL, lateral extraarticular tenodesis, LET, Lemaire, anterolateral ligament, ALL, biomechanics.What is known about this subject: Clinical and radiological findings suggest that anterolateral structures can be injured at the time of the ACL tear. This provides a rationale for combining extraarticular procedures with the intraarticular ACL reconstruction in selected cases. Although numerous descriptions of anterolateral techniques exist, there is no consensus on how graft fixation should be performed to best restore native knee laxity.What this study adds to existing knowledge: If performing a modified Lemaire tenodesis in combination with an ACL reconstruction in a combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee, native knee kinematics can be restored if the graft is fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion. If, however, performing an ALL procedure, the most favorable kinematics were found if the graft was tensioned at full extension. INTRODUCTION:Extra-articular procedures have historically been used in isolation as surgical treatment for ACL deficiency 12,27,30. With arthroscopic assistance, intra-articular ACL reconstruction was popularized and quickly became the primary treatment due to the less invasive approach and improved clinical outcomes 6,8. Some studies have, however, reported that combining extra-articular procedures with the intra-articular ACL reconstruction can improve outcomes as compared to an isolated ACL reconstruction 29,32,36,47. Recently there has been renewed interest in the importance of anterolateral structures in controlling anterolateral rotational instability (ALRI) of the knee 16,19,35,41. Biomechanical studies provide a rationale for this additional effect observed when performing anterolateral procedures in conjunction with ACL reconstruction 2,17,44. Numerous extra-articular techniques have been described in the literature 4,12,18,26,27. While many of these have been abandoned, some - such as the Lemaire tenodesis - are still in use 9,30,46. More recent techniques, based on the anterolateral ligament, have been described as less invasive and more anatomic than traditional approaches, and have provided promising preliminary clinical data ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>FA32E7AE-A9F2-4FEF-8C34-1BCDF74C7F04</uuid><priority>8</priority><publications><publication><volume>43</volume><publication_date>99201506301200000000222000</publication_date><number>7</number><doi>10.1177/0363546515571571</doi><startpage>1598</startpage><title>Outcome of a Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Technique With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up</title><uuid>D641BB30-985B-483F-B596-2A5F053F39B5</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>1605</endpage><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>B</firstName><lastName>Sonnery-Cottet</lastName></author><author><firstName>M</firstName><lastName>Thaunat</lastName></author><author><firstName>B</firstName><lastName>Freychet</lastName></author><author><firstName>B</firstName><middleNames>H B</middleNames><lastName>Pupim</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><middleNames>G</middleNames><lastName>Murphy</lastName></author><author><firstName>S</firstName><lastName>Claes</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>43. Several biomechanical studies have explored technical aspects of potential anterolateral procedures 22,31,44. A graft path deep to the LCL and with the femoral graft insertion in the area proximal and posterior to the lateral epicondyle has been shown to have a desirable length change pattern with knee flexion ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>59D603E6-A5A3-42C3-8684-B6F0601D27CA</uuid><priority>10</priority><publications><publication><publication_date>99201412241200000000222000</publication_date><doi>10.1177/0363546514560993</doi><title>Length Change Patterns in the Lateral Extra-articular Structures of the Knee and Related Reconstructions</title><uuid>9400F35E-4C90-4EA4-A75C-161528AF0000</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>C</firstName><lastName>Kittl</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><lastName>Halewood</lastName></author><author><firstName>J</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Stephen</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Gupte</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><lastName>Weiler</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><lastName>Williams</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><middleNames>A</middleNames><lastName>Amis</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>22. Although the understanding of extra-articular techniques has been advanced by recent studies, there are still unanswered questions for surgeons who want to add such procedures to intra-articular ACL reconstruction. An important issue is the angle of flexion that should be used when tensioning and fixing the graft. Technical descriptions diverge in their recommendations and there is no clear consensus onprotocols. The current study therefore aimed to investigate the effect of knee flexion angle during graft fixation when performing a modified Lemaire tenodesis - that had previously been found to have favorable kinematic effects 17 - and a recently described anterolateral ligament complex (ALL) procedure 41, in combination with an ACL reconstruction in a knee with a combined ACL and anterolateral injury.The underlying hypotheses for the current study were: (1) that a combined ACL and anterolateral lesion would increase knee laxity as compared to an isolated ACL injury. (2) That an isolated ACL reconstruction could not restore intact knee kinematics in a combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee, (3) that there would be no difference in kinematics between the intact knee and the combined ACL reconstruction/modified Lemaire tenodesis tensioned at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion, and (4) that there would be no difference in kinematics between the intact knee and the combined ACL reconstruction/anterolateral ligament procedure tensioned at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Preparation of specimensAfter ethical approval (blinded for review), 12 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were obtained from a tissue bank (blinded for review). Mean age was 49 (range 28-62: 5 right and 7 left knees, 6 male, 6 female). Specimens were stored at -20°C and thawed for 24 h before testing. During experiments they were kept moist using water spray. Soft tissues were removed further away than 15 cm from the joint and both tibia and femur were cut 20 cm from the joint line. Skin and subcutaneous fat were removed. An intramedullary rod was cemented into the femur using poly methylmethacrylate bone cement. The femoral rod was secured in a six degree-of-freedom rig at 6° valgus to align the mechanical axis of the knee to the test rig (Figure 1) ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>5A00A859-1972-450A-A860-9AA35B3851C7</uuid><priority>11</priority><publications><publication><volume>69</volume><publication_date>99198707001200000000220000</publication_date><number>6</number><startpage>873</startpage><title>The anatomy and functional axes of the femur.</title><uuid>14A41BE3-D355-4196-9D2A-1C9EF755E311</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>880</endpage><type>400</type><url> Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>DE8848A6-CB89-4575-B841-DBD065BFAED8</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>Y</firstName><lastName>Yoshioka</lastName></author><author><firstName>D</firstName><lastName>Siu</lastName></author><author><firstName>T</firstName><middleNames>D</middleNames><lastName>Cooke</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>49. A tibial pot with a 50 cm axial extending rod was cemented onto the distal tibia. The rig allowed passive knee motion from 0° to 100° of flexion by moving the femur whilst the tibia hung vertically. A Steinman pin was drilled mediolaterally through the tibia so that a semi-circular hoop could be mounted anteriorly. Using the hoop, anterior drawer force could be applied to the proximal tibia by a string, pulley and weight system without restricting the coupled tibial rotation. A 20 cm polyethylene disc was secured to the tibial rod and hanging weights applied via a pulley and string system to opposite poles of the disc allowed tibial internal rotation torques to be applied. A clamping device was also attached to the central rod so that the tibia could be returned to and held in its neutral position at any time during testing. The neutral position was marked at the start of the experiment in three angles of knee flexion (0°, 30° and 60°).Figure 1 – The knees were mounted in the six-degree of freedom rig and optical trackers were securely drilled into bone. A pulley and weight system was used to apply external loads during the kinematic testing from 0° to 90° of knee flexion.Kinematic measurementsOptical tracking was performed using a Polaris camera system (NDI, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) and BrainLab reflective Markers (BrainLab, Feldkirchen, Germany) securely mounted to the tibia and femur (Figure 1). By digitizing fiducial markers attached to anatomic landmarks on tibia and femur a reference coordinate system was created. The most medial and lateral parts of the tibial plateau and the anatomic axis (the distal extension rod) were used to create the tibial plane. For the femoral plane a transverse axis from the medial to the lateral epicondyles and the proximal end of the intramedullary rod were used. The kinematic data were retrieved using an established method 7,17,23. Zero degrees of flexion was defined as the position where the tibial and femoral rods were parallel as seen in the sagittal plane. Anterior translation was calculated as the perpendicular distance from the midpoint of the femoral epicondylar axis to the tibial coronal reference plane, and motions were described as tibial motion relative to the femur. The translational accuracy of the tracking system was ± 0.04 mm 20 and the rotational accuracy was ± 0.03 °.Surgical techniqueThe same experienced orthopaedic surgeon performed all surgery with the knee mounted in the test rig. An initial arthroscopy was performed to ensure no damage to cruciate ligaments, menisci, cartilage or other intraarticular structures. After testing the intact state, the ACL was resected arthroscopically. After testing the ACL injured state, an anterolateral lesion was created. A choice was made to create a “worst case scenario” (including both the ALL and capsulo-osseous fibers of the ITB) as the baseline for testing of anterolateral procedures. A 50 mm incision was made in the mid-substance of the ITB along its fibers in a distal to proximal direction starting at Gerdy’s tubercle. Through this incision the lateral (fibular) collateral ligament (LCL) was identified and preserved. The mid-substance fibers of the ALL were identified and a cut was made anterior and parallel to the LCL from the lateral epicondyle to the tibiofemoral joint line to transect the ALL and the capsule ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>412453F2-AC36-48B3-9C1B-21C8F81BE3CE</uuid><priority>14</priority><publications><publication><uuid>9378E33B-1BD3-4C95-8C45-3A3E8DC7C509</uuid><volume>96-B</volume><doi>10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.33033</doi><startpage>325</startpage><publication_date>99201403001200000000220000</publication_date><url> anterolateral ligament: Anatomy, length changes and association with the Segond fracture.</title><location>&lt;html&gt;&lt;head&gt;&lt;meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/&gt;&lt;title&gt;Sorry...&lt;/title&gt;&lt;style&gt; body { font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; background-color: #fff; color: #000; }&lt;/style&gt;&lt;/head&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;table&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font face=times color=#0039b6 size=10&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=times color=#c41200 size=10&gt;o&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=times color=#f3c518 size=10&gt;o&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=times color=#0039b6 size=10&gt;g&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=times color=#30a72f size=10&gt;l&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=times color=#c41200 size=10&gt;e&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td style="text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom; padding-bottom: 15px; width: 50%"&gt;&lt;div style="border-bottom: 1px solid #dfdfdf;"&gt;Sorry...&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 4em;"&gt;&lt;h1&gt;We're sorry...&lt;/h1&gt;&lt;p&gt;... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 4em;"&gt;See &lt;a href=""&gt;Google Help&lt;/a&gt; for more information.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #dfdfdf;"&gt;&lt;a href=""&gt;Google Home&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/html&gt;</location><institution>Imperial College London, Biomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, London SW7 2AZ, UK.</institution><number>3</number><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>331</endpage><bundle><publication><title>The bone &amp; joint journal</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>CBC09828-D32C-4783-A472-1B0ED0376866</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>A</firstName><middleNames>L</middleNames><lastName>Dodds</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><lastName>Halewood</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Gupte</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><lastName>Williams</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><middleNames>A</middleNames><lastName>Amis</lastName></author></authors></publication><publication><volume>43</volume><publication_date>99201504171200000000222000</publication_date><number>7</number><doi>10.1177/0363546515578253</doi><startpage>1606</startpage><title>The Anterolateral Ligament: An Anatomic, Radiographic, and Biomechanical Analysis</title><uuid>DF74858F-49CB-4F4A-8D13-0D29ACFF7964</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>1615</endpage><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>M</firstName><middleNames>I</middleNames><lastName>Kennedy</lastName></author><author><firstName>S</firstName><lastName>Claes</lastName></author><author><firstName>F</firstName><middleNames>A F</middleNames><lastName>Fuso</lastName></author><author><firstName>B</firstName><middleNames>T</middleNames><lastName>Williams</lastName></author><author><firstName>M</firstName><middleNames>T</middleNames><lastName>Goldsmith</lastName></author><author><firstName>T</firstName><middleNames>L</middleNames><lastName>Turnbull</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><middleNames>A</middleNames><lastName>Wijdicks</lastName></author><author><firstName>R</firstName><middleNames>F</middleNames><lastName>LaPrade</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>11,19. Proximal to the LCL the retrograde, supracondylar and proximal femoral attachments of the ITB were identified and transected ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>8A645BA8-4B94-44CC-AA60-F28EE0C2F18A</uuid><priority>15</priority><publications><publication><uuid>27DC8504-01AE-48B4-BD35-581A6159E5AE</uuid><volume>44</volume><doi>10.1177/0363546515614312</doi><startpage>345</startpage><publication_date>99201602001200000000220000</publication_date><url> Role of the Anterolateral Structures and the ACL in Controlling Laxity of the Intact and ACL-Deficient Knee.</title><institution>The Biomechanics Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK Department of Trauma Surgery, Landeskrankenhaus Steyr, Steyr, Austria.</institution><number>2</number><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>354</endpage><bundle><publication><url> American Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>C87CE202-AB29-4A6D-8F5E-3C9A80E25B66</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>Christoph</firstName><lastName>Kittl</lastName></author><author><firstName>Hadi</firstName><lastName>El-Daou</lastName></author><author><firstName>Kiron</firstName><middleNames>K</middleNames><lastName>Athwal</lastName></author><author><firstName>Chinmay</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Gupte</lastName></author><author><firstName>Andreas</firstName><lastName>Weiler</lastName></author><author><firstName>Andy</firstName><lastName>Williams</lastName></author><author><firstName>Andrew</firstName><middleNames>A</middleNames><lastName>Amis</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>21. The combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee was then tested.The arthroscopic ACL reconstruction was performed with a 10 mm bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft harvested from the tested knee. The graft was positioned in a central tibial to an anteromedial fiber bundle femoral attachment position. The femoral bone block was fixed with a 7x25 mm interference screw (RCI, Smith & Nephew, Andover, USA) and the tibial bone block was fixed with a 9x35 screw (RCI, Smith & Nephew, Andover, USA). The knee was held at 30° of flexion and the graft was tensioned with an 80 N manual pull, using a tensiometer. Secure back-up fixation was performed on both the tibia and the femur by tying the bone block sutures to cortical bone screws.The modified Lemaire tenodesis and the ALL procedure were chosen due to their recent popularity, and both were used in each knee. The former has been shown to restore intact knee kinematics in a combined injured knee ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>3FC8E9D0-59E3-486C-993C-C6C41DCD3331</uuid><priority>16</priority><publications><publication><publication_date>99201511141200000000222000</publication_date><startpage>1</startpage><doi>10.1007/s00167-015-3858-3</doi><title>The effect of intraoperative fluoroscopy on the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement in single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction</title><uuid>DA7228E5-56D5-4EA9-81F7-BC1899F5AD00</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><publisher>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><type>400</type><endpage>10</endpage><url>" Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><title>Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>F1CEFE20-0152-4FEE-9216-0EAE7560CBE2</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>Eivind</firstName><lastName>Inderhaug</lastName></author><author><firstName>Allan</firstName><lastName>Larsen</lastName></author><author><firstName>Per</firstName><middleNames>Arne</middleNames><lastName>Waaler</lastName></author><author><firstName>Torbj?rn</firstName><lastName>Strand</lastName></author><author><firstName>Thomas</firstName><lastName>Harlem</lastName></author><author><firstName>Eirik</firstName><lastName>Solheim</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>17, while the latter was the first ALL reconstruction used in a large clinical series 43. To avoid any bias due to tissue deterioration and order of procedures, a study administrator (not taking part in surgery) determined a variable order that was only given to the surgeon throughout the study. At the start of each procedure the knees were brought back to and held in their native neutral position at the relevant flexion angle, using a clamping device. A former study investigating the effect of graft tensioning protocols found that 20 N tension gave optimal restoration of native knee kinematics and was therefore applied in the current study ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>AF760D88-F20A-473B-844D-C7DBEFE06867</uuid><priority>17</priority><publications><publication><publication_date>99201511141200000000222000</publication_date><startpage>1</startpage><doi>10.1007/s00167-015-3858-3</doi><title>The effect of intraoperative fluoroscopy on the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement in single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction</title><uuid>DA7228E5-56D5-4EA9-81F7-BC1899F5AD00</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><publisher>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><type>400</type><endpage>10</endpage><url>" Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><title>Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>F1CEFE20-0152-4FEE-9216-0EAE7560CBE2</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>Eivind</firstName><lastName>Inderhaug</lastName></author><author><firstName>Allan</firstName><lastName>Larsen</lastName></author><author><firstName>Per</firstName><middleNames>Arne</middleNames><lastName>Waaler</lastName></author><author><firstName>Torbj?rn</firstName><lastName>Strand</lastName></author><author><firstName>Thomas</firstName><lastName>Harlem</lastName></author><author><firstName>Eirik</firstName><lastName>Solheim</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>17. Braided sutures (Ultrabraid, Smith & Nephew, Andover, USA) were used to whipstitch the free ends of all grafts so that these could be passed to the medial side of the knee through a full-length femoral tunnel. A hanging weight was thereafter applied to allow 10 cycles of flexion to extension to pre-condition the graft before the final fixation was performed. An 8x25 mm interference screw (RCI, Smith & Nephew, Andover, USA) was used. Additional secure back-up fixation was achieved by tying the sutures to cortical bone-screws on the medial femoral (for the Lemaire) and tibial (for the ALL procedure) cortex.The ALL procedure was performed in accordance with a previously described technique using a 2-strand gracilis autograft in an inverted V configuration ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>C86AE67C-D00A-48F2-B751-073C422FD484</uuid><priority>18</priority><publications><publication><volume>43</volume><publication_date>99201506301200000000222000</publication_date><number>7</number><doi>10.1177/0363546515571571</doi><startpage>1598</startpage><title>Outcome of a Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Technique With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up</title><uuid>D641BB30-985B-483F-B596-2A5F053F39B5</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>1605</endpage><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>B</firstName><lastName>Sonnery-Cottet</lastName></author><author><firstName>M</firstName><lastName>Thaunat</lastName></author><author><firstName>B</firstName><lastName>Freychet</lastName></author><author><firstName>B</firstName><middleNames>H B</middleNames><lastName>Pupim</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><middleNames>G</middleNames><lastName>Murphy</lastName></author><author><firstName>S</firstName><lastName>Claes</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>42. The distal ends were fixed into two pre-drilled 7 mm tunnels positioned between Gerdy?s tubercle and the fibular head on the tibia using interference screws (Figure 2). The graft passed superficial to the LCL and was secured in an 8 mm femoral tunnel using an 8x25 mm interference screw. The femoral tunnel was placed 8 mm proximal and 5 mm posterior to the lateral epicondyle, corresponding to the femoral ALL attachment and the insertion site of the Lemaire procedure 11,19,22,26.Figure 2 - The ALL procedure was performed using a gracilis tendon autograft fixed with interference screws in two graft tunnels between Gerdy?s tubercle and the fibular head and one screw in a graft tunnel positioned proximal and slightly posterior to the lateral epicondyle 9,26,31.A modified Lemaire procedure was performed using a 15 x 100 mm central strip of the ITB 9,17,26,30 (Figure 3). The tibial attachment of the ITB was kept intact. The graft was routed deep to the LCL to the same femoral tunnel as described for the ALL procedure. An 8x25 mm interference screw was used for fixation, plus backup sutures.Figure 3 - The modified Lemaire tenodesis was performed using a mid-strip of the ITB that was left attached to the Gerdy’s tubercle, tunnelled deep to the LCL and fixed in the same femoral tunnel as for the ALL procedure using an interference screw.Testing protocolThe kinematic data were collected from three cycles of passive knee flexion from 0° - 90°. The following states were tested: (1) intact, (2) ACL transected, (3) combined ACL and anterolateral lesion, (4) ACL reconstruction, (5) ACL reconstruction combined with an ALL procedure, (6) ACL reconstruction combined with a modified Lemaire procedure. States (5) and (6) were repeated with the graft fixed at 0°, 30°, or 60° of knee flexion. States (1) to (4) were tested in that order, whilst states (5) and (6), and the order of flexion angles at graft fixation, were randomized throughout the study.Each state (1) to (6) was tested from 0° - 90° of knee flexion without any external loads and with the following loads applied: 90 N anterior drawer force, 5 Nm internal tibial torque and 90 N anterior drawer/5 Nm internal tibial torque combined. Again, this order of testing was randomized. Data analysisAn a priori alpha value of 0.05 was used to denote statistical significance, giving a P value of 0.013 after Bonferroni correction to allow for 4 comparisons. With a hypothesized effect size of d=1.25, 12 specimens would ensure a statistical power of 80% and were therefore included in the study ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>3E06E8DE-6A35-4215-9379-E3A2B8253C31</uuid><priority>21</priority><publications><publication><volume>39</volume><publication_date>99200705001200000000220000</publication_date><number>2</number><institution>Institut für Psychologie, Christian-Albrechts-Universit?t Kiel, Kiel, Germany. ffaul@psychologie.uni-kiel.de</institution><startpage>175</startpage><title>G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.</title><uuid>1ECAD620-8BCF-4D4F-A4D5-A96CD1AC155E</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>191</endpage><type>400</type><url> research methods</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>BE221552-4F29-4E0B-A314-6104597B4EAA</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>Franz</firstName><lastName>Faul</lastName></author><author><firstName>Edgar</firstName><lastName>Erdfelder</lastName></author><author><firstName>Albert-Georg</firstName><lastName>Lang</lastName></author><author><firstName>Axel</firstName><lastName>Buchner</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>14. MatLab scripts (MathWorks Inc., Natick, Ma, USA) were used for data processing and for calculating mean tibial translations and rotations at 10° intervals through 0° - 90° of knee flexion. SPSS version 22.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for statistical analysis. The Shapiro Wilk test was applied to assess normality of the data sets. As normality was confirmed, two-way repeated-measures analyses of variance (RM ANOVAs) were used to compare (1) the intact state with both ACL cut and ACL plus anterolateral cut states, (2) the isolated ACL reconstructed state with the intact knee, (3) the intact state with the three ALL procedures (fixed at 0°, 30° and 60° knee flexion), (4) the intact knee with the three Lemaire tenodeses (fixed at 0°, 30° and 60° knee flexion), and (5) the laxity of the knee with an isolated ACL reconstruction was compared with the laxity after each of the combined procedures. Paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections were applied when differences across test conditions were found to examine the hypotheses defined in the introduction.RESULTS:The effect of ACL and combined ACL plus anterolateral lesionsBoth sectioning the ACL and cutting the anterolateral structures resulted in significant increases in anterior tibial translation in response to the anterior draw force (Figure 4), internal rotation in response to the internal torque (Figure 5), and both effects in response to the combined anterior force and internal torque, as compared to the intact knees (All: P<0.001).Figure 4 - The response to 90 N anterior drawer force for intact knees, ACL cut, combined ACL and anterolateral cut and an ACL reconstructed state (N=12; Mean + or - SD).Figure 5 - The response to 5 Nm internal torque for intact knees, ACL cut, combined ACL and anterolateral cut and an ACL reconstructed state (N=12; Mean + or - SD).The effect of an isolated ACL reconstruction in the combined injured kneeIncreased laxity persisted following an isolated ACL reconstruction, when compared to the intact state, with increased tibial translation (P=0.035, Figure 4), internal rotation (P=0.001, Figure 5) and combined internal rotation and anterior translation (P=0.025)The effect of combining ACL reconstruction and anterolateral procedures on tibiofemoral kinematicsAfter combining the ACL reconstruction with the ALL procedures (fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of flexion), there were no differences in the response to an anterior draw force (Figure 6) or combined anterior draw and internal rotation torque compared to the intact knee state (both: P>0.05). For an isolated tibial internal rotation torque, an overall residual increase of rotational laxity was observed (P=0.043 by RM-ANOVA) (Figure 7). When the angle of graft fixation was examined by post-testing, a significant difference was not found between the intact knees and the ALL procedure tensioned at full extension (P>0.05). If the ALL procedure was fixed at 30° knee flexion, pairwise testing found increased internal rotation, at 20° and from 50°- 70° degrees of flexion (P=0.005-0.012). The ALL procedure fixed at 60° had an increased rotation at 60° - 90° degrees of flexion (P=0.001-0.006). When comparing the laxities of the combined ACL and ALL procedures to those of the ACL-only reconstructed state, significant reductions in internal rotation from adding the ALL procedures were not found (P>0.05).Figure 6 - The response to 90 N anterior drawer force for intact knees and combined ACL and ALL procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion (N=12; Mean + or - SD).Figure 7 - The response to 5 Nm internal torque for intact knees and combined ACL and ALL procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion (N=12; Mean + or - SD). Circles denote statistical difference (P<0.05) from intact knees.After combining the modified Lemaire procedures (tensioned at 0°, 30° and 60° of flexion) with the ACL reconstruction, there were no differences in response to anterior draw force as compared to the intact knees (P>0.05) (Figure 8). Neither were any differences in the response to the internal torque (Figure 9) or internal torque and anterior force combined between intact knees and any of the Lemaire procedures (tensioned at 0°, 30° and 60° of flexion) found (both: P>0.05). When comparing the combined ACL and Lemaire states to the ACL-only reconstructed state, significant reductions in knee internal rotation laxity were found (P<0.05)Figure 8 - The response to 90 N anterior drawer force for intact knees and combined ACL and modified Lemaire procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion (N=12; Mean + or - SD).Figure 9 - The response to 5 Nm internal rotation torque for intact knees and combined ACL and modified Lemaire procedure fixed at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion (N=12; Mean + or - SD)DISCUSSION:The main finding in the current study is the restoration of intact knee laxity in a combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee when performing anterolateral procedures along with the intraarticular ACL reconstruction. This study confirmed that an isolated ACL reconstruction could not restore native knee laxity in the presence of the combined ACL plus anterolateral lesions. The results provide greater insight regarding the performances of the anterolateral procedures in relation to the angle of knee flexion during graft tensioning and fixation. The modified Lemaire tenodesis restored native knee laxity regardless of the angle of knee flexion (0°, 30° or 60°) for graft tensioning and fixation. Native knee laxity was also restored by an ALL procedure when the graft was tensioned in full knee extension. The current findings largely support our initial hypotheses: (1) The combined ACL and anterolateral lesion caused an increase knee laxity as compared to an isolated ACL injury; (2) The isolated ACL reconstruction could not restore intact knee kinematics in a combined ACL and anterolateral injured knee; (3) There was no difference in kinematics between the intact knee and the combined ACL reconstruction/modified Lemaire tenodesis tensioned at 0°, 30° or 60° of knee flexion; (4) There was no difference in kinematics between the intact knee and the combined ACL reconstruction/anterolateral ligament procedure tensioned at 0° of knee flexion, although residual internal rotation laxity persisted when the ALL procedure was tensioned at greater angles of knee flexion. These findings highlight how details of the surgical procedure, such as the knee flexion angle at graft tensioning, influence results when addressing a combined ACL and anterolateral injury 28,45. A biomechanical factor which helps to explain the efficacy of the modified Lemaire procedure is the relatively anterior attachment to Gerde’s tubercle, which gives a more efficient force vector to resist anterior movement of the lateral aspect of the tibia than if the graft is attached towards the head of the fibula 2.Given that anterolateral structures are believed to have a role in ALRI, it is reasonable to think that graft fixation near full knee extension (the flexion angle where the pivot shift can be elicited) may be favorable when aiming to restore normal knee kinematics. Lemaire?s original tenodesis adhered to this principle as it was tensioned at 30° knee flexion ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>981FF035-D937-4180-9019-6ADEAC7846FA</uuid><priority>23</priority><publications><publication><volume>93</volume><number>3</number><subtitle>Fréquence. Clinique. Traitement.</subtitle><startpage>311</startpage><title>Ruptures anciennes du ligament croisé antérieur du genou</title><uuid>5FC9C869-02C8-4F8C-9673-28D5064BF049</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>320</endpage><type>400</type><publication_date>99196701011200000000222000</publication_date><bundle><publication><title>J Chir</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>3F20FB5E-BF76-4E8D-9A47-01E1B89499F8</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>M</firstName><lastName>Lemaire</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>26. The Lemaire procedure has been modified in later publications, but few of the authors have reported angle of flexion at graft fixation 9,25,30. A recent description by Wagner et al. differed from Lemaire by fixing at 70°, but no clear rationale was given for the use of a higher angle of flexion ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>6B58C785-2282-49BF-974D-1D928E53F680</uuid><priority>25</priority><publications><publication><uuid>FB6D0419-33AA-4753-B953-B7F6F2DE9A42</uuid><volume>27</volume><doi>10.1007/s00142-014-0819-7</doi><subtitle>Modified Lemaire procedure</subtitle><startpage>198</startpage><publication_date>99201407101200000000222000</publication_date><url> stabilization</title><number>3</number><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>201</endpage><bundle><publication><title>Arthroskopie</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>1FADB280-E284-48C2-8688-FD1036A302B1</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>M</firstName><lastName>Wagner</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><lastName>Weiler</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>48. There has been little biomechanical study of the Lemaire procedure. For the relatively new ALL procedures most descriptions also recommend fixation at the traditional 20° - 30° knee flexion 40,42. Sonnery-Cottet et al. reported tensioning and fixation in full extension in their follow-up evaluation of 92 patients treated with a combined ACL and anterolateral approach ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>9C1B4271-E141-40F9-B1E4-E59B47276CD7</uuid><priority>1</priority><publications><publication><volume>43</volume><publication_date>99201506301200000000222000</publication_date><number>7</number><doi>10.1177/0363546515571571</doi><startpage>1598</startpage><title>Outcome of a Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Technique With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up</title><uuid>D641BB30-985B-483F-B596-2A5F053F39B5</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>1605</endpage><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>B</firstName><lastName>Sonnery-Cottet</lastName></author><author><firstName>M</firstName><lastName>Thaunat</lastName></author><author><firstName>B</firstName><lastName>Freychet</lastName></author><author><firstName>B</firstName><middleNames>H B</middleNames><lastName>Pupim</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><middleNames>G</middleNames><lastName>Murphy</lastName></author><author><firstName>S</firstName><lastName>Claes</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>43. On the other hand Nitri et al. have suggested using 75° knee flexion - on the basis of findings from a biomechanical study by Parsons et al. 31,33. In that latter study the ALL was described as a primary stabilizer in internal rotation of the tibia at high flexion angles. These results have, however, later been disputed due to the authors removing the ITB prior to kinematic testing ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>23B2C5C7-3262-4701-BC4B-6D434564D9EF</uuid><priority>28</priority><publications><publication><volume>43</volume><publication_date>99201507311200000000222000</publication_date><number>8</number><doi>10.1177/0363546515597218</doi><startpage>NP22</startpage><title>The Biomechanical Function of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee: Response</title><uuid>0BF466CB-97A3-4361-80B8-2CB1A31E1D80</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>NP22</endpage><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>E</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Parsons</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><middleNames>O</middleNames><lastName>Gee</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><lastName>Spiekerman</lastName></author><author><firstName>P</firstName><middleNames>R</middleNames><lastName>Cavanagh</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>34. Since a later study has shown that the ITB is the most important restraint for tibial internal rotation ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>842ABB49-52DC-4D55-B981-09508BB13A4B</uuid><priority>29</priority><publications><publication><uuid>27DC8504-01AE-48B4-BD35-581A6159E5AE</uuid><volume>44</volume><doi>10.1177/0363546515614312</doi><startpage>345</startpage><publication_date>99201602001200000000220000</publication_date><url> Role of the Anterolateral Structures and the ACL in Controlling Laxity of the Intact and ACL-Deficient Knee.</title><institution>The Biomechanics Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK Department of Trauma Surgery, Landeskrankenhaus Steyr, Steyr, Austria.</institution><number>2</number><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>354</endpage><bundle><publication><url> American Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>C87CE202-AB29-4A6D-8F5E-3C9A80E25B66</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>Christoph</firstName><lastName>Kittl</lastName></author><author><firstName>Hadi</firstName><lastName>El-Daou</lastName></author><author><firstName>Kiron</firstName><middleNames>K</middleNames><lastName>Athwal</lastName></author><author><firstName>Chinmay</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Gupte</lastName></author><author><firstName>Andreas</firstName><lastName>Weiler</lastName></author><author><firstName>Andy</firstName><lastName>Williams</lastName></author><author><firstName>Andrew</firstName><middleNames>A</middleNames><lastName>Amis</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>21, not accounting for this structure could likely over-estimate the importance of the ALL. Translation of these results to a clinical setting should therefore be done with caution. A number of studies have investigated the biomechanical performance of anterolateral tenodeses in combination with intraarticular ACL reconstruction 3,5,13,17,31,37,44. Of these only three have evaluated the procedures used in the current work. Spencer et al. performed an ALL reconstruction using braided suture tape and a modified Lemaire procedure using a 10 mm strip of the ITB ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>4EFB87AE-4BA7-4C2D-BB0D-A564281D0460</uuid><priority>31</priority><publications><publication><volume>43</volume><publication_date>99201506191200000000222000</publication_date><number>9</number><doi>10.1177/0363546515589166</doi><startpage>2189</startpage><title>Biomechanical Analysis of Simulated Clinical Testing and Reconstruction of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee</title><uuid>791FBD73-3914-4BF9-B2A8-2A9C3A983BD1</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><endpage>2197</endpage><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>L</firstName><lastName>Spencer</lastName></author><author><firstName>T</firstName><middleNames>A</middleNames><lastName>Burkhart</lastName></author><author><firstName>M</firstName><middleNames>N</middleNames><lastName>Tran</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><middleNames>J</middleNames><lastName>Rezansoff</lastName></author><author><firstName>S</firstName><lastName>Deo</lastName></author><author><firstName>S</firstName><lastName>Caterine</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Getgood</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>44. The ALL procedure used in that study was unable to restore the intact internal rotation pattern whilst the Lemaire procedure caused significant improvements in rotational control; these findings are consistent with the present results in spite of differences in technique. Another study compared the kinematic patterns of several anterolateral procedures including a modified Lemaire and an anatomic ALL-reconstruction ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>A1F2D161-6828-4050-9FFC-27E0EE0BC36B</uuid><priority>32</priority><publications><publication><publication_date>99201511141200000000222000</publication_date><startpage>1</startpage><doi>10.1007/s00167-015-3858-3</doi><title>The effect of intraoperative fluoroscopy on the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement in single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction</title><uuid>DA7228E5-56D5-4EA9-81F7-BC1899F5AD00</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><publisher>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><type>400</type><endpage>10</endpage><url>" Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><title>Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>F1CEFE20-0152-4FEE-9216-0EAE7560CBE2</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>Eivind</firstName><lastName>Inderhaug</lastName></author><author><firstName>Allan</firstName><lastName>Larsen</lastName></author><author><firstName>Per</firstName><middleNames>Arne</middleNames><lastName>Waaler</lastName></author><author><firstName>Torbj?rn</firstName><lastName>Strand</lastName></author><author><firstName>Thomas</firstName><lastName>Harlem</lastName></author><author><firstName>Eirik</firstName><lastName>Solheim</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>17. In that study the optimal graft tension was investigated by applying several forces at graft fixation. The Lemaire tenodesis restored intact knee kinematics with both 20N and 40N of graft tensioning. The ALL reconstruction left residual laxity, even when 40N graft tension was applied. Schon et al. investigated the effect of flexion angle during fixation of an anatomic ALL graft on knee kinematics when combined with an ACL reconstruction 38. The ALL graft was tensioned stepwise from 0° to 90° of knee flexion and the kinematic response was assessed. Their main finding was overconstraint of internal rotation for all the graft fixation angles, but a relatively high 88 N graft tension was used in that study. The use of 20 N graft tension in the present study follows earlier work 17, and it did match the native knee laxity for the modified Lemaire procedure with fixation at any of the knee flexion angles investigated (0o – 60o). The ALL procedure, with a two strand configuration rather than the single strand used in previous studies, restored intact knee kinematics when fixed in full knee extension – but led to incomplete control of internal rotation if fixed in flexion. It was observed that knee flexion-extension caused one or other of the separate arms of the ALL graft to slacken, so that it was less effective for resisting tibial internal rotation; this suggests use of a more robust single-strand graft. Although the long-term effects on cartilage health of adding an anterolateral procedure are unknown 10,15, the authors suggest that procedures that can restore knee laxity using lower graft tensions (such as 20 N) should be a safer choice for surgeons wanting to address anterolateral injuries, because a higher tension may alter knee kinematics and elevate articular contact pressure. The current study found that the modified Lemaire procedure had close to normal kinematic performance independent of the three fixation angles used for graft tensioning (0°, 30° and 60°). A explanation for these results might be found in studies looking at length change patterns of anterolateral procedures 22,24,39. Kittl et al. investigated both anatomic structures and such potential surgical procedures throughout the knee range of motion ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <citation><uuid>77F5C84F-63B0-44CA-B9BB-5C53BD017A07</uuid><priority>35</priority><publications><publication><publication_date>99201412241200000000222000</publication_date><doi>10.1177/0363546514560993</doi><title>Length Change Patterns in the Lateral Extra-articular Structures of the Knee and Related Reconstructions</title><uuid>9400F35E-4C90-4EA4-A75C-161528AF0000</uuid><subtype>400</subtype><type>400</type><url> Journal of Sports Medicine</title><type>-100</type><subtype>-100</subtype><uuid>69685541-055C-47A4-A751-16551BEF996B</uuid></publication></bundle><authors><author><firstName>C</firstName><lastName>Kittl</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><lastName>Halewood</lastName></author><author><firstName>J</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Stephen</lastName></author><author><firstName>C</firstName><middleNames>M</middleNames><lastName>Gupte</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><lastName>Weiler</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><lastName>Williams</lastName></author><author><firstName>A</firstName><middleNames>A</middleNames><lastName>Amis</lastName></author></authors></publication></publications><cites></cites></citation>22. Although the tested structures/procedures had a wide variety of elongation patterns, two factors did reliably predict relatively “isometric” graft behavior: a graft path deep to the LCL and femoral graft insertion proximal/posterior to the lateral epicondyle. A key for these findings is thought to be a “pulley effect” of the LCL that facilitates the favorable graft behavior. A graft path such as the modified Lemaire tenodesis had a length change of less than 5% through 0° - 90° of knee flexion. This supports the current results and illustrates that the choice of anterolateral procedure, the graft tension, and the knee flexion angle at which the graft is tensioned and fixed, are all factors that influence time-zero kinematics.Limitations of this study include the reporting of results at time zero after surgery. Postoperative effects of tissue regeneration and rehabilitation might affect graft tension and knee laxity over time and are not accounted for in a laboratory setting. Also, since the study was performed on unloaded knees, it is hard to predict how the results translate into a fully weight-bearing knee facing the loads of vigorous sports. The current anterolateral injury involved both the anterolateral ligament and the deep proximal attachments of the ITB, and also split along the ITB. This might be a “worst case scenario” as compared to anterolateral injuries seen in a clinical setting but represents a base case scenario that is ideal if aiming to demonstrate performance of anterolateral procedures. A pilot study for a previous experiment 17 showed that the longitudinal ITB split did not affect the kinematics, so it would not have disadvantaged the ALL procedure (which is performed minimally-invasively in-vivo) in the present work. While the analyses found many significant effects arising from the surgical procedures, the variability among the knees is reflected by the large standard deviations about the mean behavior. The range from loose to tight knees is a commonplace clinical observation – some knees which are ACL-deficient can remain tighter than other intact knees 1,17 – but this normal between-knees variability was allowed-for by using the repeated-measures statistical analysis. We therefore believe that the study gives a realistic time-zero picture of procedures with different graft tensioning angles and that these results might be useful for surgeons deciding to combine anterolateral procedures with intra-articular ACL reconstruction. Noting the limitations of working in-vitro, future work should focus on clinical outcomes after combined ACL reconstruction and anterolateral procedures to help to define subpopulations of patients who will benefit from the combined approach.ConclusionIn the combined anterolateral and ACL-injured state, the isolated ACL reconstruction failed to restore normal kinematics and left persistent increased tibial translation and internal rotation as compared to the intact state. The modified Lemaire tenodesis combined with ACL reconstruction restored normal knee kinematics regardless of the angle of flexion at which the graft was tensioned and fixed, so the graft can be tensioned at the knee flexion angle of preference (from 0° to 60°). This finding relied on the use of a 20 N graft tensioning protocol with the tibia held in neutral rotation, to avoid under- or over-constraint. The two-strand ALL procedure combined with ACL reconstruction replicated the normal knee kinematics when fixed in extension but failed to restore internal rotation when fixed in flexion.REFERENCES: ADDIN PAPERS2_CITATIONS <papers2_bibliography/>1.Amis AA. Anterior cruciate ligament replacement - knee stability and the effects of implants. J. Bone Joint. Surg. [Br] 1989; 71B: 819-824.2.Amis AA. Anterolateral knee biomechanics. Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthroscopy 2017; 25:1003-1011. doi 10.1007/s00167-017-4436-x.3.Amis AA, Scammell BE. Biomechanics of intra-articular and extra-articular reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75B:812–817.4.Andrews JR, Sanders R. A “mini-reconstruction” technique in treating anterolateral rotatory instability (ALRI). Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;172:93–96.5.Butler PD, Mellecker CJ, Rudert MJ, Albright JP. Single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstructions in isolation and in conjunction with extra-articular iliotibial band tenodesis. Iowa Orthop J. 2013;33:97–106.6.Chambat P, Guier C, Sonnery-Cottet B, Fayard J-M, Thaunat M. The evolution of ACL reconstruction over the last fifty?years. Int Orthop. 2013;37(2):181–186. 7.Cuomo P, Rama KRBS, Bull AMJ, Amis AA. The Effects of Different Tensioning Strategies on Knee Laxity and Graft Tension After Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(12):2083–2090. 8.Dandy DJ, Flanagan JP, Steenmeyer V. Arthroscopy and the management of the ruptured anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;(167):43–49.9.Dejour D, Vanconcelos W, Bonin N, Saggin PRF. Comparative study between mono-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone, double-bundle hamstring and mono-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone combined with a modified Lemaire extra-articular procedure in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2012;37(2):193–199.10.Dodds AL, Gupte CM, Neyret P, Williams AM, Amis AA. Extra-articular techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(11):1440–1448.11.Dodds AL, Halewood C, Gupte CM, Williams A, Amis AA. The anterolateral ligament: Anatomy, length changes and association with the Segond fracture. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(3):325–331. 12.Ellison AE. Distal iliotibial-band transfer for anterolateral rotatory instability of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(3):330–337.13.Engebretsen L, Lew WD, Lewis JL, Hunter RE. The effect of an iliotibial tenodesis on intraarticular graft forces and knee joint motion. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(2):169–176.14.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191.15.Ferretti A. Extra-articular reconstruction in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee: a commentary. Joints. 2014;2(1):41–47.16.Hewison CE, Tran MN, Kaniki N, Remtulla A, Bryant D, Getgood AM. Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Reduces Rotational Laxity When Combined With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Arthroscopy. 2015. Doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.04.089.17.Inderhaug E, Stephen J, Williams A, Amis A. Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral procedures combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45:347-354.; doi: 10.1177/0363546516681555. 18.Ireland J, Trickey EL. Macintosh tenodesis for anterolateral instability of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62(3):340–345.19.Kennedy MI, Claes S, Fuso FAF, et al. The Anterolateral Ligament: An Anatomic, Radiographic, and Biomechanical Analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1606–1615. 20.Khadem R, Yeh CC, Sadeghi-Tehrani M, et al. Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems. Comput Aided Surg. 2000;5(2):98–107. 21.Kittl C, El-Daou H, Athwal KK, et al. The Role of the Anterolateral Structures and the ACL in Controlling Laxity of the Intact and ACL-Deficient Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):345–354.22.Kittl C, Halewood C, Stephen JM, et al. Length Change Patterns in the Lateral Extra-articular Structures of the Knee and Related Reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43:354-362.23.Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA. Biomechanical Comparison of Anatomic Double-Bundle, Anatomic Single-Bundle, and Nonanatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(2):279–288.24.Krackow KA, Brooks RL. Optimization of knee ligament position for lateral extraarticular reconstruction. Am J Sports Medicine. 1983;11(5):293–302.25.Lazzarone C, Crova M, Brach Del Prever E, Comba D. Extraarticular reconstruction in the treatment of chronic lesions of the anterior cruciate ligament. Ital J Orthop Traumatol. 1990;16(4):459–465.26.Lemaire M. Ruptures anciennes du ligament croisé antérieur du genou. J Chir. 1967;93(3):311–320.27.Losee RE, Johnson TR, Southwick WO. Anterior subluxation of the lateral tibial plateau. A diagnostic test and operative repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60(8):1015–1030.28.Mansour R, Yoong P, McKean D, Teh JL. The iliotibial band in acute knee trauma: patterns of injury on MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2014;43(10):1369–1375.29.Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, et al. Intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction utilizing autogeneous semitendinosus and gracilis tendons: 5-year clinical results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003;11(1):2–8.30.Neyret P, Palomo JR, Donell ST, Dejour H. Extra-articular tenodesis for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in amateur skiers. Br J Sports Med. 1994;28(1):31–34.31.Nitri M, Rasmussen MT, Williams BT, et al. An In Vitro Robotic Assessment of the Anterolateral Ligament, Part 2: Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Combined With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44:593-601.32.Noyes FR, Barber SD. The effect of an extra-articular procedure on allograft reconstructions for chronic ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):882–892.33.Parsons EM, Gee AO, Spiekerman C, Cavanagh PR. The Biomechanical Function of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2015..43: 669-674.34.Parsons EM, Gee AO, Spiekerman C, Cavanagh PR. The Biomechanical Function of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee: Response. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):NP22.35.Rasmussen MT, Nitri M, Williams BT, et al. An In Vitro Robotic Assessment of the Anterolateral Ligament, Part 1: Secondary Role of the Anterolateral Ligament in the Setting of an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44:585-592.36.Rezende FC, Moraes VY, Martimbianco A, Luzo MV, da Silveira Franciozi CE, Belloti JC. Does Combined Intra- and Extraarticular ACL Reconstruction Improve Function and Stability? A Meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015:1–10. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4285-y.37.Samuelson M, Draganich LF, Zhou X, Krumins P, Reider B. The effects of knee reconstruction on combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral capsular deficiencies. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(4):492–497.38.Schon JM, Moatshe G, Brady AW, Serra Cruz R, et al. Anatomic anterolateral ligament reconstruction of the knee leads to overconstraint at any flexion angle. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:2546-2556.39.Sidles JA, Larson RV, Garbini JL, Downey DJ, Matsen FA. Ligament length relationships in the moving knee. J Orthop Res. 1988;6(4):593–610. 40.Smith JO, Yasen SK, Lord B, Wilson AJ. Combined anterolateral ligament and anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. September 2015. Doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3783-5.41.Sonnery-Cottet B, Barbosa NC, Tuteja S, Daggett M, Kajetenek C, Thaunat M Minimally Invasive Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction in the Setting of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Arthrosc Techn. 2016. DOI:10.1016/j.eats.2015.11.005.42.Sonnery-Cottet B, Lutz C, Daggett M, et al. The Involvement of the Anterolateral Ligament in Rotational Control of the Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2016. doi:10.1177/0363546515625282.43.Sonnery-Cottet B, Thaunat M, Freychet B, Pupim BHB, Murphy CG, Claes S. Outcome of a Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Technique With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1598–1605. 44.Spencer L, Burkhart TA, Tran MN, et al. Biomechanical Analysis of Simulated Clinical Testing and Reconstruction of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee. Am J Sports Medicine. 2015;43(9):2189–2197. 45.Terry GC, Norwood LA, Hughston JC, Caldwell KM. How iliotibial tract injuries of the knee combine with acute anterior cruciate ligament tears to influence abnormal anterior tibial displacement. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(1):55–60.46.Trojani C, Beaufils P, Burdin G, et al. Revision ACL reconstruction: influence of a lateral tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;20(8):1565–1570.47.Vadalà AP, Iorio R, De Carli A, et al. An extra-articular procedure improves the clinical outcome in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings in female athletes. Int Orthop. 2012;37(2):187–192. 48.Wagner M, Weiler A. Anterolateral stabilization. Arthroskopie. 2014;27(3):198–201.49.Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke TD. The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(6):873–880. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download