The "N+10 Rule" to Avoid Graft-Tunnel Mismatch in Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone ACL Reconstruction Using Independent Femoral Tunnel Drilling.

anterior cruciate ligament graft-tunnel mismatch reconstruction tibial tunnel length

Journal

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2023
Historique:
received: 08 01 2023
accepted: 30 01 2023
medline: 30 5 2023
pubmed: 30 5 2023
entrez: 30 5 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Graft-tunnel mismatch (GTM) is a common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts. Application of the "N+10 rule" in endoscopic ACLR with BPTB grafts will result in acceptable tibial tunnel length (TTL), minimizing GTM. Controlled laboratory study. Endoscopic BPTB ACLR was conducted on the paired knees of 10 cadaveric specimens using 2 independent femoral tunnel drilling techniques-accessory anteromedial portal and flexible reamer. The graft bone blocks were trimmed to 10 × 20 mm, and the intertendinous distance (represented by "N") between the bone blocks was measured. The N+10 rule was used to set the angle of the ACL tibial tunnel guide to the appropriate number of degrees for drilling. The amount of excursion or recession of the tibial bone plug in relation to the anterior tibial cortical aperture was measured in both flexion and extension. A GTM threshold of ±7.5 mm was set based on prior studies. The mean BPTB ACL intertendinous distance was 47.5 ± 5.5 mm. The mean measured intra-articular distance was 27.2 ± 3 mm. Using the N+10 rule, the mean total (flexion plus extension) GTM was 4.3 ± 3.2 mm (GTM in flexion, 4.9 ± 3.6 mm; GTM in extension, 3.8 ± 3.5 mm). In 18 of 20 (90%) cadaveric knees, the mean total GTM fell within the ±7.5-mm threshold. When comparing the actual measured TTL to the calculated TTL, there was a mean difference of 5.4 ± 3.9 mm. When comparing femoral tunnel drilling techniques, the total GTM for the accessory anteromedial portal technique was 2.1 ± 3.7 mm, while the total GTM for the flexible reamer technique was 3.6 ± 5.4 mm ( The N+10 rule resulted in an acceptable mean GTM in both flexion and extension. The mean difference between the measured versus calculated TTL using the N+10 rule was also acceptable. The N+10 rule is a simple and effective intraoperative strategy for achieving desired TTL regardless of patient-specific factors to avoid excessive GTM in endoscopic BPTB ACLR using independent femoral tunnel drilling.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Graft-tunnel mismatch (GTM) is a common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts.
Hypothesis UNASSIGNED
Application of the "N+10 rule" in endoscopic ACLR with BPTB grafts will result in acceptable tibial tunnel length (TTL), minimizing GTM.
Study Design UNASSIGNED
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Endoscopic BPTB ACLR was conducted on the paired knees of 10 cadaveric specimens using 2 independent femoral tunnel drilling techniques-accessory anteromedial portal and flexible reamer. The graft bone blocks were trimmed to 10 × 20 mm, and the intertendinous distance (represented by "N") between the bone blocks was measured. The N+10 rule was used to set the angle of the ACL tibial tunnel guide to the appropriate number of degrees for drilling. The amount of excursion or recession of the tibial bone plug in relation to the anterior tibial cortical aperture was measured in both flexion and extension. A GTM threshold of ±7.5 mm was set based on prior studies.
Results UNASSIGNED
The mean BPTB ACL intertendinous distance was 47.5 ± 5.5 mm. The mean measured intra-articular distance was 27.2 ± 3 mm. Using the N+10 rule, the mean total (flexion plus extension) GTM was 4.3 ± 3.2 mm (GTM in flexion, 4.9 ± 3.6 mm; GTM in extension, 3.8 ± 3.5 mm). In 18 of 20 (90%) cadaveric knees, the mean total GTM fell within the ±7.5-mm threshold. When comparing the actual measured TTL to the calculated TTL, there was a mean difference of 5.4 ± 3.9 mm. When comparing femoral tunnel drilling techniques, the total GTM for the accessory anteromedial portal technique was 2.1 ± 3.7 mm, while the total GTM for the flexible reamer technique was 3.6 ± 5.4 mm (
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
The N+10 rule resulted in an acceptable mean GTM in both flexion and extension. The mean difference between the measured versus calculated TTL using the N+10 rule was also acceptable.
Clinical Relevance UNASSIGNED
The N+10 rule is a simple and effective intraoperative strategy for achieving desired TTL regardless of patient-specific factors to avoid excessive GTM in endoscopic BPTB ACLR using independent femoral tunnel drilling.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37250745
doi: 10.1177/23259671231168885
pii: 10.1177_23259671231168885
pmc: PMC10214051
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

23259671231168885

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2023.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: S.E.D. has received education payments from Arthrex and hospitality payments from Stryker. I.S.M. has received education payments from Medwest. T.E.M. has received education payments from Fortis Surgical. B.C.W. has received education payments, consulting fees, and nonconsulting fees from Arthrex and hospitality payments from Integra LifeSciences. F.W.G. has received education payments from Fortis Surgical; consulting fees from DePuy/Medical Device Business Services and OsteoCentric Technologies; nonconsulting fees from Arthrex; royalties from OsteoCentric Technologies and Smith & Nephew; and hospitality payments from Stryker. M.D.M. has received consulting fees from Arthrex and Ipsen Bioscience; nonconsulting fees and royalties from Arthrex; and honoraria from Encore Medical. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Références

Arthroscopy. 1997 Oct;13(5):597-9
pubmed: 9343648
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1380-5
pubmed: 25767269
Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 May 03;9(5):23259671211003244
pubmed: 34017879
Am J Sports Med. 1994 Jan-Feb;22(1):131-5
pubmed: 8129096
Arthroscopy. 1998 Jan-Feb;14(1):9-14
pubmed: 9486327
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Nov-Dec;28(6):846-9
pubmed: 11101107
Arthroscopy. 1996 Feb;12(1):124-6
pubmed: 8838744
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2021 Mar 1;33(1):7
pubmed: 33648610
Arthroscopy. 1999 Apr;15(3):338-40
pubmed: 10231118
Arthroscopy. 1996 Aug;12(4):513-5
pubmed: 8864015
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 May;19(5):259-64
pubmed: 21536625
Arthroscopy. 1998 Mar;14(2):224-8
pubmed: 9531138
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6(3):165-8
pubmed: 9704323
Orthop J Sports Med. 2020 Aug 06;8(8):2325967120943185
pubmed: 32821762
Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):633-46
pubmed: 8305099
Am J Sports Med. 1987 May-Jun;15(3):225-9
pubmed: 3303979
Arthroscopy. 2018 Aug;34(8):2438-2443.e1
pubmed: 29730211
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Sep-Oct;28(5):761-74
pubmed: 11032238
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Dec 21;6(12):2325967118816317
pubmed: 30622999
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Feb;36(2):379-94
pubmed: 18202298
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Nov;29(11):3871-3876
pubmed: 33486558
J Knee Surg. 2005 Jul;18(3):183-91
pubmed: 16152866
Arthroscopy. 2018 Aug;34(8):2444-2445
pubmed: 30077267
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Jun;35(6):986-9
pubmed: 17337725
Arthroscopy. 1997 Jun;13(3):291-5
pubmed: 9195023

Auteurs

Ryan M Graf (RM)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Scott E Dart (SE)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Ian S MacLean (IS)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Laurel A Barras (LA)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Thomas E Moran (TE)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Brian C Werner (BC)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

F Winston Gwathmey (FW)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

David R Diduch (DR)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Mark D Miller (MD)

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Classifications MeSH