Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Cross-pin femoral fixation in PCL reconstruction: a cadaver study

  • 218 Accesses

  • 4 Citations

Abstract

In PCL reconstruction many techniques have been described. Crucial item in pre-operative planning is graft choice and graft fixation. Compared to other grafts, hamstring is getting more popular because it is longer, has higher mechanical properties and doesn’t harm extensor apparatus of the knee. Furthermore the absence of the bone block makes easier hamstring insertion in the femoral tunnel. Hamstring greater disadvantage is fixation. Many fixation devices, used in ACL reconstruction, have been described for PCL procedure. One of these, recently proposed, is a cross-pin femoral fixation technique, for hamstring PCL reconstruction [10]. The authors drilled the femoral tunnel in an inside-out manner [11] (width 8 mm and depth 35 mm) and fixed the hamstring with the Rigidfix (Mitek, Norwood, MA), passing the device via the anterolateral (AL) portal. The aim of this anatomical cadaver study is to evaluate the entrance points of cross-pins and the possible iatrogenic damages, during transverse fixation via anterolateral portal. The device we used is the Rigidfix (Mitek, Norwood, MA), designed to use two biodegradable pins for ACL femoral fixation. Femoral drilling and cross pins insertion were performed on 20 (10 × 2) fresh frozen cadaver knees. The risk of chondral damage, evaluated during the knees dissection, is high.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Bullis DW, Fenton PJ, Paulos LE (1996) Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. In: McGinty JB (ed) Operative arthroscopy. Lippincott–Raven, Philadelphia, pp 531–549

  2. 2.

    Cain EL, Clancy WG (2002) Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: two-bundle technique. J Knee Surg 15:108–113

  3. 3.

    Christel P (2003) Basic principles for surgical reconstruction of PCL in cronic posterior knee instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:289–296

  4. 4.

    Fanelli GC, Giannotti BF, Edson CJ (1994) The posterior cruciate ligament arthroscopic evaluation and treatment (current concepts review). Arthroscopy 10:526–529

  5. 5.

    Harner CD, Baek GHG, Vogrin TM, Carlin GJ, Kashiwagushi S, Woo SLY (1999) Quantitative analysis of human cruciate ligament insertions. Arthroscopy 15:741–749

  6. 6.

    Harner CD, Hoeher J (1998) Evaluation and treatment of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 26:471–482

  7. 7.

    Harner CD, Höher J, Vogrin TM, Carlin GJ, Woo SLY (1998) The effects of a popliteus muscle load on in situ forces in the posterior cruciate ligament and on the knee kinematics. A human cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 26:669–673

  8. 8.

    Höher J, Harner CD, Vogrin TM, Baek GH, Carlin GJ, Woo SLY (1998) In situ forces in the posterolateral structures of the knee under posterior tibial loading in the intact and posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. J Orthop Res 16:675–681

  9. 9.

    Höher J, Scheffler S, Weiler A (2003) Graft choice and graft fixation in PCL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:297–306

  10. 10.

    In Y, Bahk WJ, Kwon OS (2004) Cross-Pin femoral fixation for hamstring posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 20:e29–33

  11. 11.

    Kim SJ, Min BH (1994) Arthroscopic intraarticular interference screw technique of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: One incision technique. Arthroscopy 10:319–323

  12. 12.

    Mariani PP, Becker R, Rihn J, Margheritini F (2003) Surgical treatment of posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner injuries: an anatomical, biomechanical and clinical review. Knee 10:311–324

  13. 13.

    Mologne TS, Friedman MJ (2001) Arthroscopic anterior cruciate reconstruction with hamstring tendons: Indications, surgical technique, complications and their treatment. In: Insall JN, Scott WN (eds) Surgery of the knee. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 681–692

  14. 14.

    Niedzwietzki P, Zantop T, Raschke AMJ, Petersen W (2007) Femoral fixation of hamstring grafts in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: biomechanical evaluation of different fixation techniques. Is there an acute angle effect? Am J Sports Med 35(5):780–786

  15. 15.

    Race A, Amis AA (1998) PCL reconstruction: in vitro biomechanical comparison of “isometric” versus single and double bundled “anatomic” grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:173–179

  16. 16.

    Salini V, Colucci C, Palmieri D (2005) Artroscopia di ginocchio:principi generali della tecnica. In Pellacci F. Chirurgia artroscopica dell’arto inferiore, Mattioli 1885

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Davide Edoardo Bonasia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rossi, R., Bonasia, D.E., Assom, M. et al. Cross-pin femoral fixation in PCL reconstruction: a cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthr 15, 1194–1197 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-007-0358-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • PCL reconstruction
  • Cross-pin fixation
  • Hamstring autograft
  • Anterolateral portal
  • Cadaver study