A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries. Issue 4 (12th April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Treme, Gehron P.; Salas, Christina; Ortiz, Gabriel; Gill, George Keith; Johnson, Paul J.; Menzer, Heather; Richter, Dustin L.; Qeadan, Fares; Wascher, Daniel C.; Schenck, Robert C.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 7:Issue 4(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-04-12
• Subjects: posterolateral corner -- knee -- reconstruction -- multiligament injury; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967119838251
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: Injury to the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee requires reconstruction to restore coronal and rotary stability. Two commonly used procedures are the Arciero reconstruction technique (ART) and the LaPrade reconstruction technique (LRT). To the authors' knowledge, these techniques have not been biomechanically compared against one another. Purpose: To identify if one of these reconstruction techniques better restores stability to a PLC-deficient knee and if concomitant injury to the proximal tibiofibular joint or anterior cruciate ligament affects these results. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Eight matched-paired cadaveric specimens from the midfemur to toes were used. Each specimen was tested in 4 phases: intact PLC (phase 1), PLC sectioned (phase 2), PLC reconstructed (ART or LRT) (phase 3), and tibiofibular (phase 4A) or anterior cruciate ligament (phase 4B) sectioning with PLC reconstructed. Varus angulation and external rotation at 0º, 20º, 30º, 60º, and 90º of knee flexion were quantified at each phase. Results: In phase 3, both reconstructions were effective at restoring laxity back to the intact state. However, in phase 4A, both reconstructions were ineffective at stabilizing the joint owing to tibiofibular instability. In phase 4B, both reconstructions had the potential to restrict varus angulation motion. There were no statistically significant differences found between reconstruction techniques for varus angulation or external rotation at any degree of flexion in phase 3 or 4. Conclusion: The LRT and ART are equally effective at restoring stability to knees with PLC injuries. Neither reconstruction technique fully restores stability to knees with combined PLC and proximal tibiofibular joint injuries. Clinical Relevance: Given these findings, surgeons may select their reconstruction technique based on their experience and training and the specific needs of their patients.