Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Better rotational control but similar outcomes with the outside-in versus the transtibial drilling technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of comparative trials

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

This study was a systematic review comparing the clinical outcomes of using the transtibial (TT) versus the outside-in (OI) technique for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Materials and methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. All databases were searched from the earliest records through August 2017 using the following Boolean operators: transtibial AND (outside-in OR out-in OR two incisions) AND anterior cruciate ligament. All prospective and retrospective controlled trials were retrieved that directly compared physical examination and knee function scores and patient-rated outcomes between the TT and OI techniques.

Results

Four prospective and three retrospective articles were identified by the search, and the findings suggested that the OI was superior to the TT technique for preparing the femoral tunnel based on the pivot shift test (p = 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grades, IKDC scores, Lysholm scores, Tegner scores, or the Lachman test.

Conclusions

No statistically significant differences were found in clinical functional results when comparing patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with the TT or OI techniques. However, the OI technique was found to be advantageous in conferring increased rotational stability as revealed by the pivot shift test. Additional studies with larger sample sizes are needed to make more precise conclusions.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic study (systematic review), Level III.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Emond CE, Woelber EB, Kurd SK, Ciccotti MG, Cohen SB (2011) A comparison of the results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bioabsorbable versus metal interference screws a meta-analysis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93(6):572–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Csintalan RP, Inacio MC, Funahashi TT (2008) Incidence rate of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Perm J 12:17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Steiner M (2009) Anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc 17(4):247–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marchant BG, Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD, Fleckenstein C (2010) Prevalence of nonanatomical graft placement in a series of failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 38:1987–1996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Refshauge K, Kader D, Connolly C, Linklater J, Pinczewski LA (2006) Long-term outcome of endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft: minimum 13-year review. Am J Sports Med 34:721–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Graf BK, Henry J, Rothenberg M et al (1994) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon. An ex vivo study of wear-related damage and failure at the femoral tunnel. Am J Sports Med 22:131–135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins JPT, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews for intervention. Version 5.0.0:180 (updated February 2008) The Cochrane Collaboration

  9. Matassi F, Sirleo L, Carulli C et al (2015) Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: transtibial versus outside-in technique: SIGASCOT Best Paper Award Finalist 2014. Joints 3(1):6–14

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Monaco E, Fabbri M, Redler A et al (2017) In-out versus out-in technique for ACL reconstruction: a prospective clinical and radiological comparison. J Orthop Traumatol 18:335 (Epub ahead of print)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cury RPL, Sprey JWC, Bragatto ALL et al (2017) Comparative evaluation of the results of three techniques in the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, with a minimum follow-up of two years. Rev Bras Ortop 52(3):319–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brandsson S, Faxén E, Eriksson BI et al (1999) Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: comparison of outside-in and all-inside techniques. Br J Sports Med 33(1):42–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yanasse RH, Lima AA, Antoniassi RS et al (2016) Transtibial technique versus two incisions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: tunnel positioning, isometricity and functional evaluation. Rev Bras Ortop 51(3):274–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahn JH, Lee YS, Jeong HJ et al (2017) Comparison of transtibial and retrograde outside-in techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in terms of graft nature and clinical outcomes: a case control study using 3T MRI. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(3):357–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Suruga M, Horaguchi T, Iriuchishima T, Yahagi Y, Iwama G, Tokuhashi Y, Aizawa S (2017 Aug) Morphological size evaluation of the mid-substance insertion areas and the fan-like extension fibers in the femoral ACL footprint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(8):1107–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Robin BN, Jani SS, Marvil SC et al (2015) Advantages and disadvantages of transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in femoral tunnel drilling in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: asystematic review. Arthroscopy 31(7):1412–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Osaki K, Okazaki K, Matsubara H, Kuwashima U, Murakami K, Iwamoto Y (2015) Asymmetry in femoral tunnel socket length during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transportal, outside-in, and modified transtibial techniques. Arthroscopy 31(12):2365–70.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhu M, Li S, Su Z, Zhou X, Peng P, Li J, Wang J, Lin L (2018) Tibial tunnel placement in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison study of outcomes between patient-specific drill template versus conventional arthroscopic techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (Epub ahead of print)

  19. Heming JF, Rand J, Steiner ME (2007) Anatomical limitations of transtibial drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 35(10):1708–1715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaecker V, Zapf T, Naendrup JH, Pfeiffer T, Kanakamedala AC, Wafaisade A, Shafizadeh S (2017) High non-anatomic tunnel position rates in ACL reconstruction failure using both transtibial and anteromedial tunnel drilling techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(9):1293–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bedi A, Musahl V, Steuber V, Kendoff D, Choi D, Allen AA et al (2011) Transtibial versus anteromedial portal reaming in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction an anatomic and biomechanical evaluation of surgical technique. Arthroscopy 27(3):380–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kopf S, Forsythe B, Wong AK, Tashman S, Fu FH (2010) Non anatomic tunnel position in traditional transtibial single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:1427–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Panni AS, Milano G, Tartarone M, Demontis A, Fabbriciani C (2001) Clinical and radiographic results of ACL reconstruction: a 5- to 7-year follow-up study of outside-in versus inside-out reconstruction techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:77–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Takeda Y, Iwame T, Takasago T et al (2013) Comparison of tunnel orientation between transtibial and anteromedial portal techniques for anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Arthroscopy 29:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Silva A, Sampaio R, Pinto E (2012) ACL reconstruction: comparison between transtibial and anteromedial portal techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:896–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yagi M, Kuroda R, Nagamune K, Yoshiya S, Kurosaka M (2007) Double-bundle ACL reconstruction can improve rotational stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:100–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lane CG, Warren R, Pearle AD (2008) The pivot shift. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:679–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Seo SS, Kim CW, Kim JG et al (2013) Clinical results comparing transtibial technique and outside in technique in single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res 25(3):133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Peter Mittwede, MD, PhD, from Liwen Bianji, Edanz Editing China, for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, 139 Ziqiang Road, Shjiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, China

    Gang Ji & Fei Wang

  2. The Central Hospital of Wuhan, Wuhan, China

    Achao Han

  3. The First Hospital of Shijiazhuang, Shijiazhuang, China

    Xuewei Hao

  4. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA

    Na Li & Ren Xu

Authors
  1. Gang Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Achao Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xuewei Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Na Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ren Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fei Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ji, G., Han, A., Hao, X. et al. Better rotational control but similar outcomes with the outside-in versus the transtibial drilling technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of comparative trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138, 1575–1581 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2976-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2976-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation