• norsk
    • English
  • norsk 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Logg inn
Vis innførsel 
  •   Hjem
  • University of Bergen Library
  • Registrations from Cristin
  • Vis innførsel
  •   Hjem
  • University of Bergen Library
  • Registrations from Cristin
  • Vis innførsel
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

The anatomic centers of the femoral and tibial insertions of the anterior cruciate ligament: a systematic review of imaging and cadaveric studies reporting normal center locations

Parkar, Anagha P; Adriaensen, Miraude E.A.M.P.; Vindfeld, Søren; Solheim, Eirik
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Accepted version
Thumbnail
Åpne
Accepted version (650.8Kb)
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2776504
Utgivelsesdato
2016
Metadata
Vis full innførsel
Samlinger
  • Department of Clinical Medicine [1540]
  • Registrations from Cristin [5530]
Originalversjon
American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016, 45 (9), 2180-2188.   10.1177/0363546516673984
Sammendrag
Background:

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is regularly reconstructed if knee joint function is impaired. Anatomic graft tunnel placement, often assessed with varying measurement methods, in the femur and tibia is considered important for an optimal clinical outcome. A consensus on the exact location of the femoral and tibial footprint centers is lacking.

Purpose:

To systematically review the literature regarding anatomic centers of the femoral and tibial ACL footprints and assess the mean, median, and percentiles of normal centers.

Study Design:

Systematic review.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/Medline database in November 2015. Search terms were the following: “ACL” and “insertion anatomy” or “anatomic footprint” or “radiographic landmarks” or “quadrant methods” or “tunnel placement” or “cadaveric femoral” or “cadaveric tibial.” English-language articles that reported the location of the ACL footprint according to the Bernard and Hertel grid in the femur and the Stäubli and Rauschning method in the tibia were included. Weighted means, weighted medians, and weighted 5th and 95th percentiles were calculated.

Results:

The initial search yielded 1393 articles. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies with measurements on cadaveric specimens or a healthy population were reviewed. The weighted mean of the femoral insertion center based on measurements in 218 knees was 29% in the deep-shallow (DS) direction and 35% in the high-low (HL) direction. The weighted median was 26% for DS and 34% for HL. The weighted 5th and 95th percentiles for DS were 24% and 37%, respectively, and for HL were 28% and 43%, respectively. The weighted mean of the tibial insertion center in the anterior-posterior direction based on measurements in 300 knees was 42%, and the weighted median was 44%; the 5th and 95th percentiles were 39% and 46%, respectively.

Conclusion:

Our results show slight differences between the weighted means and medians in the femoral and tibial insertion centers. We recommend the use of the 5th and 95th percentiles when considering postoperative placement to be “in or out of the anatomic range.”
Utgiver
Sage
Tidsskrift
American Journal of Sports Medicine
Opphavsrett
Copyright 2016 The Author(s)

Kontakt oss | Gi tilbakemelding

Personvernerklæring
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Levert av  Unit
 

 

Bla i

Hele arkivetDelarkiv og samlingerUtgivelsesdatoForfattereTitlerEmneordDokumenttyperTidsskrifterDenne samlingenUtgivelsesdatoForfattereTitlerEmneordDokumenttyperTidsskrifter

Min side

Logg inn

Statistikk

Besøksstatistikk

Kontakt oss | Gi tilbakemelding

Personvernerklæring
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Levert av  Unit