Open Access

A meta‑analysis on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Is modified transtibial technique inferior to independent drilling techniques?

  • Authors:
    • Qunhu Zhang
    • Yu Kou
    • Zhen Yuan
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: July 3, 2018     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6395
  • Pages: 1790-1799
  • Copyright: © Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

This report respectively compared the standard transtibial (sTT) technique to the independent drilling (ID) techniques applied to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It also made a comparison between the clinical results of the modified transtibial (mTT) technique and of the ID techniques. Prospective studies on transtibial (TT) and ID techniques for ACL reconstruction were retrieved from several databases and a subgroup analysis was performed to compare the sTT technique with the ID techniques and the mTT with the ID techniques. Furthermore, comparison of the Lachman test, pivot‑shift test, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective evaluations, Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale were conducted. This report included 12 clinical studies that involved 681 patients having received ACL reconstruction. The study results indicated that in comparison between the sTT and ID techniques, the ID techniques outperformed the sTT technique in the IKDC subjective score (P=0.01) and laxity (P=0.0004). However, there was no significant difference in the IKDC objective score (P=0.34), pivot‑shift test (P=0.24), Lachman test (P=0.21), Lysholm score (P=0.14) and Tegner activity scale (P=0.66). The comparison between the new mTT technique and the ID techniques suggested no significant difference in the IKDC objective and subjective scores (P=0.86), laxity (P=0.38), pivot‑shift test (P=0.66), Lachman test (P=0.10), Lysholm score (P=0.10) and Tegner activity scale (P=0.55). Compared to the sTT technique, the mTT and ID techniques are more suitable for ACL reconstruction because they can present better subjective feelings. Moreover, considering that the TT technique is familiar to surgeons and the mTT technique can bring favorable subjective feelings and objective clinical outcomes, the mTT technique shows greater utilization potential.

References

1 

Nebelung W and Wuschech H: Thirty-five years of follow-up of anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees in high-level athletes. Arthroscopy. 21:696–702. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Brown CH Jr and Carson EW: Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Clin Sports Med. 18:109–171. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Harner CD, Giffin JR, Dunteman RC, Annunziata CC and Friedman MJ: Evaluation and treatment of recurrent instability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 50:463–474. 2001.PubMed/NCBI

4 

Riboh JC, Hasselblad V, Godin JA and Mather RC III: Transtibial versus independent drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Am J Sports Med. 41:2693–2702. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Tompkins M, Milewski MD, Brockmeier SF, Gaskin CM, Hart JM and Miller MD: Anatomic femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Use of an accessory medial portal versus traditional transtibial drilling. Am J Sports Med. 40:1313–1321. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Robin BN and Lubowitz JH: Disadvantages and advantages of transtibial technique for creating the anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket. J Knee Surg. 27:327–330. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Webster KE, Palazzolo SE, McClelland JA and Feller JA: Tibial rotation during pivoting in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed knees using a single bundle technique. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 27:480–484. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Zhang Y, Xu C, Dong S, Shen P, Su W and Zhao J: Systemic review of anatomic single-versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Does femoral tunnel drilling technique matter? Arthroscopy. 32:1887–1904. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Duquin TR, Wind WM, Fineberg MS, Smolinski RJ and Buyea CM: Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg. 22:7–12. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Chechik O, Amar E, Khashan M, Lador R, Eyal G and Gold A: An international survey on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practices. Int Orthop. 37:201–206. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

McRae SM, Chahal J, Leiter JR, Marx RG and Macdonald PB: Survey study of members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association on the natural history and treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin J Sport Med. 21:249–258. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Lee SR, Jang HW, Lee DW, Nam SW, Ha JK and Kim JG: Evaluation of femoral tunnel positioning using 3-dimensional computed tomography and radiographs after single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with modified transtibial technique. Clin Orthop Surg. 5:188–194. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Haro MS, Riff A and Bach BR Jr: Tips for successful transtibial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg. 27:331–342. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Lanzetti RM, Lupariello D, De Carli A, Monaco E, Guzzini M, Fabbri M, Vadalà A and Ferretti A: Can the outside-in half-tunnel technique reduce femoral tunnel widening in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A CT study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 27:659–664. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Sohn OJ, Lee DC, Park KH and Ahn HS: Comparison of the modified transtibial technique, anteromedial portal technique and outside-in technique in ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res. 26:241–248. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Noh JH, Roh YH, Yang BG, Yi SR and Lee SY: Femoral tunnel position on conventional magnetic resonance imaging after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young men: Transtibial technique versus anteromedial portal technique. Arthroscopy. 29:882–890. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Musahl V: A modified transtibial technique was similar to an anteromedial portal technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 97:13732015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B and Hozo I: Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 5:132005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Bohn MB, Sørensen H, Petersen MK, Søballe K and Lind M: Rotational laxity after anatomical ACL reconstruction measured by 3-D motion analysis: A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 23:3473–3481. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Hussein M, van Eck CF, Cretnik A, Dinevski D and Fu FH: Prospective randomized clinical evaluation of conventional single-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 281 cases with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 40:512–520. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Matassi F, Sirleo L, Carulli C and Innocenti M: Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Transtibial versus outside-in technique: SIGASCOT Best Paper Award Finalist 2014. Joints. 3:6–14. 2015.PubMed/NCBI

22 

Yanasse RH, Lima AA, Antoniassi RS, Ezzedin DA, Laraya MH and Mizobuchi RR: Transtibial technique versus two incisions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Tunnel positioning, isometricity and functional evaluation. Rev Bras Ortop. 51:274–281. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Youm YS, Cho SD, Lee SH and Youn CH: Modified transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique in anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparison of femoral tunnel position and clinical results. Am J Sports Med. 42:2941–2947. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Xu CM, Yang L, Hu YH and Huangfu XQ: Transplantation of single-bundle four-strand hamstring tendon via anteromedial approach for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Chin J Tissue Eng Res. 16:9975–9979. 2012.

25 

Zhang Q, Zhang S, Li R, Liu Y and Cao X: Comparison of two methods of femoral tunnel preparation in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomized study. Acta Cir Bras. 27:572–576. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Koutras G, Papadopoulos P, Terzidis IP, Gigis I and Pappas E: Short-term functional and clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction with hamstrings autograft: Transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 21:1904–1909. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Daniel DM: Assessing the limits of knee motion. Am J Sports Med. 19:139–147. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Zavras TD, Race A, Bull AM and Amis AA: A comparative study of ‘isometric’ points for anterior cruciate ligament graft attachment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 9:28–33. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Kilinc BE, Kara A, Oc Y, Celik H, Camur S, Bilgin E, Erten YT, Sahinkaya T and Eren OT: Transtibial vs anatomical single bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Int J Surg. 29:62–69. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Franceschi F, Papalia R, Rizzello G, Del Buono A, Maffulli N and Denaro V: Anteromedial portal versus transtibial drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Any clinical relevance? A retrospective comparative study. Arthroscopy. 29:1330–1337. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Piasecki DP, Bach BR Jr, Orias Espinoza AA and Verma NN: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Can anatomic femoral placement be achieved with a transtibial technique? Am J Sports Med. 39:1306–1315. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Lee JK, Lee S, Seong SC and Lee MC: Anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction is possible with use of the modified transtibial technique: A comparison with the anteromedial transportal technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 96:664–672. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Misonoo G, Kanamori A, Ida H, Miyakawa S and Ochiai N: Evaluation of tibial rotational stability of single-bundle vs. anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during a high-demand activity - a quasi-randomized trial. Knee. 19:87–93. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Yagi M, Kuroda R, Nagamune K, Yoshiya S and Kurosaka M: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction can improve rotational stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 454:100–107. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Terabe Y, Harada A, Tokuda H, Okuizumi H, Nagaya M and Shimokata H: Vitamin D deficiency in elderly women in nursing homes: Investigation with consideration of decreased activation function from the kidneys. J Am Geriatr Soc. 60:251–255. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

36 

Fujita N, Kuroda R, Matsumoto T, Yamaguchi M, Yagi M, Matsumoto A, Kubo S, Matsushita T, Hoshino Y, Nishimoto K, et al: Comparison of the clinical outcome of double-bundle, anteromedial single-bundle, and posterolateral single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon graft with minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 27:906–913. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Beyaz S, Güler UO, Demir Ş, Yüksel S, Çınar BM, Özkoç G and Akpınar S: Tunnel widening after single-versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A randomized 8-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 137:1547–1555. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Schreiber VM, van Eck CF and Fu FH: Anatomic Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 18:27–32. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

39 

Siebold R: The concept of complete footprint restoration with guidelines for single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 19:699–706. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

40 

Chiba D, Tsuda E, Sasaki S, Liu X and Ishibashi Y: Anthropometric and skeletal parameters predict 2-strand semitendinosus tendon size in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 5:23259671177201482017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

September 2018
Volume 16 Issue 3

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Zhang, Q., Kou, Y., & Yuan, Z. (2018). A meta‑analysis on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Is modified transtibial technique inferior to independent drilling techniques?. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 16, 1790-1799. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6395
MLA
Zhang, Q., Kou, Y., Yuan, Z."A meta‑analysis on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Is modified transtibial technique inferior to independent drilling techniques?". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 16.3 (2018): 1790-1799.
Chicago
Zhang, Q., Kou, Y., Yuan, Z."A meta‑analysis on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Is modified transtibial technique inferior to independent drilling techniques?". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 16, no. 3 (2018): 1790-1799. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6395