It is challenging to reproduce both anatomical and functional aspects of anterolateral reconstruction: postoperative 3D-CT analysis of the femoral tunnel position.

backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the femoral tunnel position and fiber length of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction compared with the natural anatomy of the ALL. We also evaluated whether the femoral tunnel position would affect residual pivot shift.

methodsThis study was a retrospective review of 55 knees that underwent ALL reconstruction considering the anatomical and functional aspects, during primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the presence of a high-grade pivot shift or revisional ACL reconstruction. We determined the position of the femoral tunnel and the length of graft using a three-dimensional (3D)-computed tomography (CT) model after ALL reconstruction. We also measured graft excursion during surgery and examined pivot shift 2 years after surgery. We conducted a subgroup analysis of femoral tunnel position, fiber length, isometricity, and residual pivot shift depending on whether the tunnel was anterior or posterior to the lateral epicondyle (LE). We also performed a subgroup analysis depending on whether the ACL reconstruction was primary or revisional.

resultsThe mean femoral tunnel position was 2.04 mm posterior and 14.5 mm proximal from the center of the LE. The mean lengths of the anterior and posterior fibers were 66.6 and 63.4 mm, respectively. The femoral tunnel was positioned more proximally than the anatomical position, and both anterior and posterior ALL fibers were longer than the natural anatomy. The anteroposterior femoral tunnel position was significantly correlated with anterior (p = 0.045) and posterior (p = 0.037) fiber excursion. In the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in the residual pivot shift between the posterior and anterior tunnel positions. However, there were significant differences for proximal position (p < 0.001) and fiber length (p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between primary and revisional ACL regarding femoral tunnel position and fiber lengths.

conclusionIt is challenging to reproduce both anatomical and functional aspects of ALL reconstruction in both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. Especially for functional reconstruction, the femoral tunnel tended to be positioned more proximally than the anatomical position. However, the femoral tunnel position did not affect functional clinical outcomes at the 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV Case series.