We have located links that may give you full text access.
Transportal central femoral tunnel placement has a significantly higher revision rate than transtibial AM femoral tunnel placement in hamstring ACL reconstruction.
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2019 January
PURPOSE: It is proposed that central femoral ACL graft placement better controls rotational stability. This study evaluates the consequence of changing the femoral tunnel position from the AM position drilled transtibially to the central position drilled transportally. The difference in ACL graft failure is reported.
METHODS: This prospective consecutive patient single surgeon study compares the revision rates of 1016 transtibial hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 6-15 years with 464 transportal hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 2-6 years. Sex, age, graft size, time to surgery, meniscal repair and meniscectomy data were evaluated as contributing factors for ACL graft failure to enable a multivariate analysis. To adjust for the variable follow-up a multivariate hazard ratio, failure per 100 graft years and Kaplan-Meier survivorship was determined.
RESULTS: With transtibial ACLR 52/1016 failed (5.1%). With transportal ACLR 32/464 failed (6.9%). Significant differences between transportal and transtibial ACLR were seen for graft diameter, time to surgery, medial meniscal repair rates and meniscal tissue remaining after meniscectomy. Adjusting for these the multivariate hazard ratio was 2.3 times higher in the transportal group (p = 0.001). Central tunnel placement resulted in a significantly 3.5 times higher revision rate compared to an anteromedial tunnel placement per 100 graft years (p = 0.001). Five year survival was 980/1016 (96.5%) for transtibial versus 119/131 (90.5%) for transportal. Transportal ACLR also showed a significantly higher earlier failure rate with 20/32 (61%) of the transportal failing in the first year compared with 14/52 (27%) for transtibial. (p = 0.001.) CONCLUSION: Transportal central femoral tunnel ACLR has a higher failure rate and earlier failure than transtibial AM femoral tunnel ACLR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-prospective comparative study.
METHODS: This prospective consecutive patient single surgeon study compares the revision rates of 1016 transtibial hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 6-15 years with 464 transportal hamstring ACL reconstructions followed for 2-6 years. Sex, age, graft size, time to surgery, meniscal repair and meniscectomy data were evaluated as contributing factors for ACL graft failure to enable a multivariate analysis. To adjust for the variable follow-up a multivariate hazard ratio, failure per 100 graft years and Kaplan-Meier survivorship was determined.
RESULTS: With transtibial ACLR 52/1016 failed (5.1%). With transportal ACLR 32/464 failed (6.9%). Significant differences between transportal and transtibial ACLR were seen for graft diameter, time to surgery, medial meniscal repair rates and meniscal tissue remaining after meniscectomy. Adjusting for these the multivariate hazard ratio was 2.3 times higher in the transportal group (p = 0.001). Central tunnel placement resulted in a significantly 3.5 times higher revision rate compared to an anteromedial tunnel placement per 100 graft years (p = 0.001). Five year survival was 980/1016 (96.5%) for transtibial versus 119/131 (90.5%) for transportal. Transportal ACLR also showed a significantly higher earlier failure rate with 20/32 (61%) of the transportal failing in the first year compared with 14/52 (27%) for transtibial. (p = 0.001.) CONCLUSION: Transportal central femoral tunnel ACLR has a higher failure rate and earlier failure than transtibial AM femoral tunnel ACLR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-prospective comparative study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app