Back to Journals » Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine » Volume 6

Evaluating the distance between the femoral tunnel centers in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a computer simulation

Authors Tashiro Y, Okazaki K, Iwamoto Y

Received 13 January 2015

Accepted for publication 23 April 2015

Published 25 June 2015 Volume 2015:6 Pages 219—224

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJSM.S80809

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 5

Editor who approved publication: Professor Freddie H Fu



Yasutaka Tashiro, Ken Okazaki, Yukihide Iwamoto

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

Purpose: We aimed to clarify the distance between the anteromedial (AM) bundle and posterolateral (PL) bundle tunnel-aperture centers by simulating the anatomical femoral tunnel placement during double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3-D computer-aided design models of the knee, in order to discuss the risk of tunnel overlap. Relationships between the AM to PL center distance, body height, and sex difference were also analyzed.
Patients and methods: The positions of the AM and PL tunnel centers were defined based on previous studies using the quadrant method, and were superimposed anatomically onto the 3-D computer-aided design knee models from 68 intact femurs. The distance between the tunnel centers was measured using the 3-D DICOM software package. The correlation between the AM–PL distance and the subject's body height was assessed, and a cutoff height value for a higher risk of overlap of the AM and PL tunnel apertures was identified.
Results: The distance between the AM and PL centers was 10.2±0.6 mm in males and 9.4±0.5 mm in females (P<0.01). The AM–PL center distance demonstrated good correlation with body height in both males (r=0.66, P<0.01) and females (r=0.63, P<0.01). When 9 mm was defined as the critical distance between the tunnel centers to preserve a 2 mm bony bridge between the two tunnels, the cutoff value was calculated to be a height of 160 cm in males and 155 cm in females.
Conclusion: When AM and PL tunnels were placed anatomically in simulated double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the distance between the two tunnel centers showed a strong positive correlation with body height. In cases with relatively short stature, the AM and PL tunnel apertures are considered to be at a higher risk of overlap when surgeons choose the double-bundle technique.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament, double-bundle reconstruction, computer simulation, tunnel aperture, distance, height

Introduction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the standard treatment for ACL injury in athletes who want to return to a highly demanding activity. Recently, anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction using hamstring-tendon autografts, which reproduces the main two bundles of ACL fibers, the anteromedial (AM) bundle and posterolateral (PL) bundle,16 has been advocated, because it is more advantageous for restoring rotatory stability than nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction.7,8

An accurate bone-tunnel location is important to achieve successful results after ACL reconstruction.7,911 Stable graft fixation is also essential to obtain secure structural properties.1214 However, the bony bridge between the femoral AM and PL bundle tunnels can sometimes become thin and weak because of the drill used and tunnel enlargement, and as a result the breakage of the bony bridge may take place and the overlap of these two tunnel apertures can occur in double-bundle ACL reconstruction (Figure 1).1517 Especially in cases with a relatively small stature, surgeons might find it difficult to preserve sufficient distance between the AM and PL tunnels when they pursue anatomical tunnel location.18,19 The diameter of the long axis of the bone tunnel will become larger than that of the drill used because of the drill insertion at an oblique angle, and thus the shape of the intra-articular aperture has been reported to become more of an oval shape than a round one.15,20,21 An enlarged tunnel aperture in an oval shape reduces the bony bridge between the two tunnels and increases the risk of tunnel overlap, which can thus lead to graft-fixation failure. When two femoral tunnels measuring 6 mm (3 mm radius) in diameter are drilled, in order to secure a 2 mm-wide bony bridge between them, a distance of about 9 mm is needed between the tunnel centers because of the enlarged aperture in the oval shape.20 Conversely, the tunnel position might be shifted to be a nonanatomic position to avoid any overlap, and then malposition of the tunnels can occur. In order to position two tunnels anatomically and secure a bony bridge between them, basic morphological data about the positional relationship between the AM and PL bundle tunnels would therefore be useful information for surgeons when they reconstruct double bundles of ACL fibers.

Figure 1 An overlap of two tunnel apertures.
Notes: (A) This arthroscopic view of the left knee shows the breakage of the bony bridge (large midair arrow) between two femoral tunnel apertures (group of small arrows). (B) A 3-D computed tomography computer-aided design model of the same knee is shown. An overlap of the two tunnel apertures (group of small arrows) has thus occurred.

The purpose of this study was to clarify the distance between the AM and PL bundle tunnel centers by simulating the femoral tunnel placement on the anatomical ACL footprint in intact knees using a 3-D computer-aided design (CAD) model of the knee, in order to discuss the risk of tunnel overlap. Relationships between the AM–PL distance and body height and sex difference were also analyzed. We hypothesized that the AM–PL distance would positively correlate with body height, while the tunnel distance in females would be significantly shorter than that in males.

Patients and methods

Computed tomography (CT) data from 68 knees without osteoarthritis were surveyed in this study. Thirty-eight males and 30 females with a mean age of 35 years (range 15–59 years) were included. All cases had intact femurs after epiphyseal arrest, while their underlying diseases were vascular disorders (n=20), periarticular fractures of the tibia (n=17) and patella (n=8), ligament injuries (n=12), tumorous diseases of the tibia (n=8), and healthy volunteers (n=3). The 3-D knee models were reconstructed slices ranging from 0.67 to 1 mm in size for the CT dataset with high resolution using the 3-D DICOM software package (Real Intage, Cybernet Systems Co Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). The models were rotated with an accuracy of 0.1° along the three axes to overlap the medial femoral condyle to lateral femoral condyle, just like the lateral view of knee X-rays. The models were divided, and lateral half cross sections were obtained. The tunnel position within the femoral intercondylar notch was defined by the quadrant method.22 According to this method, footprints of the AM and PL bundles of the ACL were superimposed onto the knee-surface model as tunnel apertures based on the anatomical information obtained from a previous cadaveric study (Figure 2A).23 It was verified in all cases that both of the AM and PL tunnel apertures were identified behind the resident’s ridge and located within ACL footprints in all cases.2325 The distances between the AM and PL centers, the AM center and the posterior bony edge of the intercondylar wall, the PL center and the anterior border with cartilage, and the PL center and the inferior border with cartilage were measured in 3-D (Figure 2B). The relationship between the AM–PL distance and the subject’s body height was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and a cutoff height value for a higher risk of excessive adjacency of the AM and PL apertures was identified.

Figure 2 The definition of femoral tunnel position and measurement method.
Notes: (A) The position within the lateral femur was defined by the quadrant method.22 Footprints of the anteromedial bundle (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB) of the anterior cruciate ligament were superimposed onto the surface model of the femoral intercondylar notch based on the percentage from the posterior wall (deep–shallow) and from Blumensaat’s line (high–low), according to the footprint location reported in a previous cadaveric study.23 (B) The distances between the AM and PL centers (d1), the AM center and the posterior bony edge of the intercondylar wall (d2), the PL center and the anterior border with cartilage (d3), and the PL center and the inferior border with cartilage (d4) were measured using the 3-D DICOM software package.

This study was approved by our institutional review board, which permitted use of clinical CT data of the knees obtained in our institution from 2008 to 2009 (Kyushu University, approval 24-108).

Data analysis

Relationships between the AM–PL distance and body height were assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The sensitivity and specificity of body height to clarify whether each patient may have a high risk of intraoperative septal wall breakage due to bone tunnel-aperture adjacency were calculated. A cutoff value for body height was determined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Student’s unpaired t-test was used for the comparison of anatomical distances in the male and female groups. A two-tailed value of P≤0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

To examine the reproducibility of this method, the intraclass/interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were assessed.26 The reliability of the measurement values obtained in the CT knee models was high: namely, the intraobserver reliability ICC (1.3) of the data recorded for three measurements in ten knees was 0.99, and the interobserver reliability ICC (2.3) of three different orthopedic observers was 0.95 in this study.

Results

The results of the measurements from the 3-D CT knee models of the intact femurs are presented in Table 1. The distance between the AM and PL centers was 10.2±0.6 mm in males and 9.4±0.5 mm in females (P<0.01). The correlation between the AM–PL distance and body height was good in both males (R=0.66, P<0.01) and females (R=0.63, P<0.01) (Figure 3). The safe standard distance to secure a bony bridge between the AM and PL centers was set at 9 mm, based on the ovalization of the tunnel aperture. The cutoff value that correlated with a high probability of AM and PL centers within 9.0 mm was calculated to be a height of 160 cm in males and 155 cm in females. Sensitivity was 100% and specificity 92% for these cutoff values.

Table 1 Measurement results from the 3-D computed tomography knee models of intact femurs
Abbreviations: AM, anteromedial; PL, posterolateral; NS, not significant.

Figure 3 Relationships between anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) center distances and body height.
Notes: (A) Good correlation (R=0.66) was seen between the two parameters in males (P<0.01). (B) In addition, in females, good correlation (R=0.63) was seen between the two parameters (P<0.01).

Discussion

Excessive adjacency of two tunnel apertures should be avoided, because the fracture of the bony bridge could worsen the strength of graft fixation.27,28 We aimed to survey the distance between the AM and PL bundle tunnel centers when they were located anatomically in double-bundle ACL reconstruction based on a previous cadaveric study,23 using a 3-D CAD model of the intact knees, in order to clarify the correlation between the distance of the two femoral tunnels and the height of individuals. Our hypothesis was that small stature would correlate with two very close tunnel centers and the AM–PL tunnel distance in females would be significantly shorter than that in males, and this was affirmed.

An analysis of the AM and PL center geography in the CT CAD models demonstrated that the average distance between the tunnel centers was 10.2 mm in males and 9.4 mm in females. These results would be a guide to determine the tunnel position to be drilled when the bony landmark was vague during the anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Our results suggest that it would be possible in most cases to preserve the bony bridge between two tunnels with a 6 mm diameter. However, the AM–PL distance in females was significantly shorter than that in males, and the good correlation between the AM–PL distance and body height found in our study suggests that in patients with a short stature (<160 cm for males and 155 cm for females, as confirmed in the ROC curve analysis), the two tunnel centers come closer and there is a higher risk of tunnel overlap. A recent study evaluating the size of the ACL insertion site arthroscopically also reported a weak but significant correlation between the intercondylar notch size and ACL insertion-site size and that women had a smaller insertion site than men,29 although another study reported no correlation of height or sex with ACL footprint size.30 This discrepancy might be because the former study estimated the actual ACL insertion-site size and the latter estimated the length of the lateral intercondylar ridge, which is usually a curved line.

We set 9 mm as a safe standard distance for the AM and PL tunnel centers, with a diameter of 6 mm to preserve a stable bony bridge between them, based on the AM and PL graft diameter harvested from semitendinosus tendon in our previous study (AM 5.7±0.6, PL 5.5±0.6),20 another cadaveric study (AM 5.9±0.5, PL 5.6±0.4),31 and a massive-cohort study (AM 7.1±0.6, PL 5.8±0.6).32 Clinical comparative studies of single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction also advocated that the PL tunnel center should be 9 mm apart from the AM center to preserve at least a 2 mm bony bridge.27,28 In order to preserve a 2 mm width of the bony bridge when the surgeons used drills with a diameter of 6 mm (3 mm radius) and perfectly round holes were made, a distance of at least 8 mm should be secured between the AM and PL tunnel centers. However, the diameter of the long axis of the tunnel aperture does become larger than the drill used during the procedures, because drill insertion at an oblique angle leads to ovalization of the tunnel aperture.20,33 Our previous study evaluating the postoperative CT findings of 36 cases after double-bundle ACL reconstruction indicated that the ovalization of the tunnel aperture would result in 120%–130% elongation in the diameter when using the transtibial technique and approximately 110% elongation when the transportal technique is used.20 As much as 120%–130% elongation in the diameter of the tunnel aperture means that when creating two tunnels with a 6 mm diameter, the long axis would be elongated to 7.2–7.8 mm in the transtibial technique, while 110% elongation would remain 6.6 mm in the transportal technique. A cadaveric study with a single-bundle ACL reconstruction also reported that the intra-articular aperture of the femoral tunnel did indeed form an ellipse in all cases, and the percentage of ovalization in the long axis was 121%±8% using the transtibial technique.33 Therefore, we considered that the two tunnels should be placed at least 9 mm apart from each other in order to avoid any overlap when creating 6 mm-diameter tunnels.

Even if surgeons are very careful to locate the two femoral bone tunnels anatomically, they sometimes encounter a relatively small footprint area, and thus find it difficult to preserve the stable bony bridge between the two intra-articular apertures.18,19 Based on our results, in cases with relatively short stature (<160 cm for males or 155 cm for females), where the ACL footprint size is supposed to be small, femoral tunnel drilling using tibial tunnel-independent techniques, such as the transportal technique or the outside-in technique, might be considered to avoid the overlap of two tunnels and fixation failure. This is because tibial tunnel-independent techniques tend to make the femoral tunnel apertures less elongated than the transtibial technique, and there is a lower risk of overlap with the two tunnels when double-bundle reconstruction is performed.20,33 Alternatively, surgeons should select the anatomical single-bundle reconstruction from the beginning in those cases with short stature. A previous study has also reported that a narrow notch (<14 mm) or a shallow notch (<14 mm) are relative contraindications for double-bundle ACL reconstruction,34 although whether anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction competes double-bundle reconstruction in stability needs more discussion.35,36

Limitations

One of the limitations associated with this study was that the geographic data on the ACL femoral tunnel positions were not directly obtained from in vivo knees or cadaveric specimens, but from indirect CAD data superimposed based on the ratio obtained from an anatomical study.22,23 The direct observation of cadavers would be more desirable to assess basic anatomical information, but ethical restrictions and low availability made it difficult to use a sufficient number of cadavers for such fundamental research. However, the key point of this study was not to survey footprint anatomy, but to simulate and evaluate the relationship of the two tunnel apertures when anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction is performed. In addition, the positional data based on high resolution 3-D CT data are considered to be as accurate as in vivo knees and cadaveric specimens. Because the quadrant method has been widely used for the postoperative evaluation of tunnel position after ACL reconstruction in recent years,20,23,37,38 it stands to reason that we used this method for simulating the AM and PL tunnel center.

Conclusion

In the 3-D CAD simulation of double-bundle ACL reconstruction with the location of the femoral tunnels accurately positioned anatomically, the distance between the AM and PL centers was 10.2±0.6 mm in males and 9.4±0.5 mm in females (P<0.01), and this distance correlated strongly with the body height. In those cases with relatively short statue, especially in those under 160 cm for males and 155 cm for females, the distance of the AM–PL centers are supposed to be shorter than 9 mm and the risk of bony bridge breakage, due to the overlap of tunnel apertures being higher. In order to avoid any weakening of graft fixation, surgeons should therefore be aware of the patient’s body height and be careful when choosing the appropriate surgical technique.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by a grant-in-aid of the International Research Fund for Subsidy of Kyushu University School of Medicine Alumni, Japan.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.


References

1.

Izawa T, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, et al. Comparison of rotatory stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between single-bundle and double-bundle techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(7):1470–1477.

2.

Muneta T, Koga H, Mochizuki T, et al. A prospective randomized study of 4-strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(6):618–628.

3.

Kopf S, Musahl V, Bignozzi S, Irrgang JJ, Zaffagnini S, Fu FH. In vivo kinematic evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(9):2172–2177.

4.

Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H. Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):240–251.

5.

Järvelä T, Moisala AS, Sihvonen R, Järvelä S, Kannus P, Järvinen M. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation: prospective, randomized, clinical study with 2-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):290–297.

6.

Wu C, Noorani S, Vercillo F, Woo SL. Tension patterns of the anteromedial and posterolateral grafts in a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(7):879–884.

7.

Loh JC, Fukuda Y, Tsuda E, Steadman RJ, Fu FH, Woo SL. Knee stability and graft function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison between 11 o’clock and 10 o’clock femoral tunnel placement. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(3):297–304.

8.

Tashiro Y, Okazaki K, Miura H, et al. Quantitative assessment of rotatory instability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(5):909–916.

9.

Strobel MJ, Castillo RJ, Weiler A. Reflex extension loss after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction due to femoral “high noon” graft placement. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(4):408–411.

10.

Abebe ES, Utturkar GM, Taylor DC, et al. The effects of femoral graft placement on in vivo knee kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Biomech. 2011;44(5):924–929.

11.

Webster KE, Wotherspoon S, Feller JA, McClelland JA. The effect of anterior cruciate ligament graft orientation on rotational knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(9):2113–2120.

12.

Staerke C, Möhwald A, Gröbel KH, Bochwitz C, Becker R. ACL graft migration under cyclic loading. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(8):1065–1070.

13.

Mae T, Kuroda S, Matsumoto N, et al. Migration of EndoButton after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(11):1528–1535.

14.

Lehmann AK, Osada N, Zantop T, Raschke MJ, Petersen W. Femoral bridge stability in double-bundle ACL reconstruction: impact of bridge width and different fixation techniques on the structural properties of the graft/femur complex. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(8):1127–1132.

15.

Kawaguchi Y, Kondo E, Onodera J, et al. Tunnel enlargement and coalition after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts: a computed tomography study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1(1):1–9.

16.

Kiekara T, Järvelä T, Huhtala H, Moisala AS, Suomalainen P, Paakkala A. Tunnel communication and increased graft signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(12):1595–1601.

17.

Siebold R, Cafaltzis K. Differentiation between intraoperative and postoperative bone tunnel widening and communication in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(8):1066–1073.

18.

Iriuchishima T, Shirakura K, Yorifuji H, Aizawa S, Murakami T, Fu FH. ACL footprint size is correlated with the height and area of the lateral wall of femoral intercondylar notch. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(4):789–796.

19.

Kopf S, Pombo MW, Szczodry M, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH. Size variability of the human anterior cruciate ligament insertion sites. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1):108–113.

20.

Tashiro Y, Okazaki K, Uemura M, et al. Comparison of transtibial and transportal techniques in drilling femoral tunnels during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3D-CAD models. Open Access J Sports Med. 2014;5:65–72.

21.

Kopf S, Martin DE, Tashman S, Fu FH. Effect of tibial drill angles on bone tunnel aperture during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(4):871–881.

22.

Bernard M, Hertel P, Hornung H, Cierpinski T. Femoral insertion of the ACL. Radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg. 1997;10(1):14–21; discussion 21–22.

23.

Zantop T, Wellmann M, Fu FH, Petersen W. Tunnel positioning of anteromedial and posterolateral bundles in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anatomic and radiographic findings. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(1):65–72.

24.

Pombo MW, Shen W, Fu FH. Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: where are we today? Arthroscopy. 2008;24(10):1168–1177.

25.

Tsukada H, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Toh S. Anatomical analysis of the anterior cruciate ligament femoral and tibial footprints. J Orthop Sci. 2008;13(2):122–129.

26.

Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–428.

27.

Aglietti P, Giron F, Losco M, Cuomo P, Ciardullo A, Mondanelli N. Comparison between single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(1):25–34.

28.

Siebold R, Dehler C, Ellert T. Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):137–145.

29.

Wolters F, Vrooijink SH, Van Eck CF, Fu FH. Does notch size predict ACL insertion site size? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19 Suppl 1:S17–S21.

30.

Wu E, Chen M, Cooperman D, Victoroff B, Goodfellow D, Farrow LD. No correlation of height or gender with anterior cruciate ligament footprint size. J Knee Surg. 2011;24(1):39–43.

31.

Iriuchishima T, Shirakura K, Yorifuji H, Aizawa S, Fu FH. Size comparison of ACL footprint and reconstructed auto graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(4):797–803.

32.

Kondo E, Yasuda K, Azuma H, Tanabe Y, Yagi T. Prospective clinical comparisons of anatomic double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in 328 consecutive patients. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(9):1675–1687.

33.

Miller CD, Gerdeman AC, Hart JM, et al. A comparison of 2 drilling techniques on the femoral tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(3):372–379.

34.

Muller B, Hofbauer M, Wongcharoenwatana J, Fu FH. Indications and contraindications for double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2013;37(2):239–246.

35.

Zeman P, Koudela K, Kasl J, Nepraš P, Zeman J, Matějka J. [Anatomical ACL reconstruction by a double- versus a single-bundle technique. Prospective randomized study of short-term clinical results]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2014;81(1):40–50. Czech.

36.

Bohn MB, Sørensen H, Petersen MK, Søballe K, 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. Epub July 4, 2014.

37.

Kim JG, Chang MH, Lim HC, Bae JH, Ahn JH, Wang JH. Computed tomography analysis of the femoral tunnel position and aperture shape of transportal and outside-in ACL reconstruction: do different anatomic reconstruction techniques create similar femoral tunnels? Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2512–2520.

38.

Tsuda E, Ishibashi Y, Fukuda A, Yamamoto Y, Tsukada H, Ono S. Tunnel position and relationship to postoperative knee laxity after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a transtibial technique. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(4):698–706.

Creative Commons License © 2015 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.