Abstract
Experienced surgeons are skilled in accurate placement of bone tunnels into the native ACL footprint by using a variety of intra-articular landmarks (such as the resident’s ridge) as reference points without employing navigation systems. However, navigation systems can provide surgeons with a wide variety of data in real time that cannot be obtained under arthroscopic observation. In fact, navigation systems are useful tools for the objective assessment of the tunnel position as well as for the measurement of knee preoperative and postoperative laxity and kinematics. They also serve as an educational tool for less experienced surgeons.
This chapter will introduce you computer-assisted ACL reconstruction surgery and its principal uses including tunnel positioning and its important contribution assessing joint laxities and the controlling effect of different surgical techniques used to treat ACL-deficient knees.
A number of investigators have reported their experience with navigation-assisted ACL reconstruction surgery and their findings will be discussed. We will focus on the most relevant and latest published articles about navigation in ACL surgery.
Finally, clinical outcomes when using navigation systems will be discussed.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- ACL reconstruction
- Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery (CAOS)
- Navigation ACL
- Tunnel placement
- Knee kinematics
-
Navigation in ACL surgery is an important tool improving tunnel placement and laxity evaluation of injured knees.
-
The navigation system can improve clinical outcomes and decrease the failure rate of ACL reconstruction.
41.1 History of Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgery for ACL Reconstruction
Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery (CAOS) began in the 1990s. Its first application was used in spinal surgery to minimize the risk of damaging neurovascular structures when pedicle screws were inserted into the vertebra [40]. Development of CAOS then expanded into hip and knee arthroplasty in order to improve the positioning of the implant [1]. CAOS, particularly in conjunction with a navigation system, has also been applied to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction since the mid-1990s [8]. Failure of ACL reconstruction was often due to technical errors, such as inappropriate tunnel position of the graft. Navigation system was introduced in ACL reconstruction to reduce such errors and was focused on improving the accuracy and reproducibility of the tunnel placement. Since the 2000s, navigation systems have been used increasingly as a quantitative measurement tool to assess ACL graft obliquity or for visualization of the pivot shift (PS) phenomenon [21]. Not only can the surgeon confirm the virtual tunnel position, but they can also decipher important information such as the risk of graft impingement, graft isometricity, and accurate assessment of laxity patterns intraoperatively on the navigation display. Thus, navigation systems have the potential to improve outcomes after ACL reconstruction by reducing variability in tunnel positions and improving their accuracy. To that end, a number of investigators have reported their experience with navigation-assisted ACL reconstruction; we discuss some of their findings in this chapter.
41.2 Navigation Types for ACL Reconstruction
There are two types of navigation systems for ACL reconstruction: image-based (e.g., VectorVision ACL 1.0, Brainlab, Heimstetten, Germany; Stealth Station iON, Medtronic, Louisville, USA) and image-free (e.g., BLU-IGS, Orthokey, Lewes, Delaware, USA; OrthoPilot, B. Braun Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany; Medivision Surgelics System, Praxim, La Trouche, France). Image-based systems require anatomical reference data obtained from intraoperative fluoroscopy imaging. Image-free systems require no preoperative data, as they are able to acquire anatomical landmark and knee kinematics information. Image-free systems have been used for ACL reconstruction for more than 10 years. This system uses infrared cameras and transmitters with reflective markers attached to the femur and tibia to register the precise location of the instruments in three-dimensional (3D) space. The cameras can track the position of the instruments to within <1 mm and <1° with assistance from a computer [7, 54]. At the first step of registration, bony landmarks (consisting of the tibial tuberosity, anterior edge of the tibia, and the medial and lateral points of the tibial plateau) and knee kinematics (consisting of the knee position at 0° and 90° of knee flexion and consecutive knee positions between 0° and 90°) are registered (Fig. 41.1).
Next, the navigation computer builds a three-dimensional model of the knee joint. The intra-articular landmarks (consisting of the anterior horn of lateral meniscus, tibial and femoral footprint of the ACL, anterior notch outlet, etc.) are necessary for the computation of the tibial and femoral tunnel aperture. Surgeons can visualize the tibial and femoral tunnel position on the navigation display, as well as other valuable parameters necessary for creating a suitable tunnel such as the angle of the tibial tunnel in the sagittal and coronal planes, distance to the PCL anterior edge, distance to the posterior cartilage border of the lateral femoral condyle, distance between tunnels in the double-bundle technique, etc. (Fig. 41.2).
Additionally, knee stability test can be performed before and after graft fixation, to quantify surgical results, including the pivot shift (PS) test (Fig. 41.3). In our experience, the additional time required for navigation surgery is approximately 5–10 min.
41.3 Accuracy of Tunnel Placement in ACL Reconstruction
The main object of using the navigation system for ACL reconstruction is to improve the precision of the femoral and tibial tunnel position. Several studies compared the accuracy of the tunnel position between navigation surgery and manual surgery. Regarding the tibial tunnel position, the mean position is not altered by the navigation systems but the deviation is significantly decreased [22, 47]. As for femoral tunnel placement, most studies show improved positioning in navigation-assisted ACL reconstruction on radiographic evaluation [22, 42, 46, 48]. Schep et al. studied intersurgeon variance during computer-assisted planning of ACL reconstruction and showed that the tunnel position was not associated with the experience level of the surgeon when using the computer-assisted surgical system [47].
There are few studies on the use of navigation systems in revision surgery [37, 51]. In revision surgery for failed ACL reconstruction, there are several types of problems including bone defects, primary tunnel malposition, and preexisting hardware. Creating an adequate new femoral tunnel is difficult in revision ACL surgery because of the existence of the primary tunnel. Taketomi et al. reported that 3D fluoroscopy-based navigation systems are especially helpful in this regard, because they enable visualization of the entire previous tunnel or any preexisting hardware inside the femoral tunnel that is not visible arthroscopically [51].
Recently, preservation of the ACL remnant has been a focus of ACL reconstruction. Remnant preservation is expected to accelerate graft maturation. However, it is difficult to confirm the ACL femoral footprint because of abundant remnant tissue. In such situations, navigation systems may be utilized for confirming the ACL footprint of the intercondylar lateral wall and for creating an adequate tunnel in the ACL footprint. Taketomi et al. described the femoral socket locations that were considered to be an anatomical footprint in accordance with previous cadaveric studies in remnant-preserving ACL reconstruction using 3D fluoroscopy-based navigation systems [52].
41.4 Knee Laxity and Kinematics Measurement
Another important feature of navigation systems in ACL reconstruction surgery is the capability to perform intraoperative kinematic evaluation of the knee joint during ACL reconstruction.
CAOS system for translational and rotational joint laxities evaluation under stress has only been reported since 2005. Zaffagnini et al. [56] and Martelli et al. [31] used the navigation for an in vivo setup with a high intersurgeon and intrasurgeon repeatability of the maneuvers.
With this system, many tests can be performed and measured for evaluating both static and dynamic instability at the operating room, before and after ACL reconstruction.
The static stability corresponds with uniplanar laxity (translation or rotation) at determined degree of flexion, for example, anteroposterior translation at 30° and 90° (Lachman and anterior drawer test, respectively), while dynamic corresponds to a complex combination of translation and rotation during the range of motion.
Since the development of new and easier navigation systems, the interest in computer-assisted procedures for clinical outcomes and research was increased. Many studies have been published since the 2000s to describe knee kinematics to enhance the knowledge about it and the effect of different techniques achieving static and dynamic stability.
Today, the most important clinical exam evaluating dynamic instability of the knee is the pivot shift test. For this reason, interest in navigating the PS was increased in the last years. Such test has been decomposed in many parameters; the most important are related with the translation, rotation, and acceleration of the lateral tibial plateau when the pivot shift maneuver is performed [28].
Some authors have used the navigation system in order to document the pre-operatory status and compared it with the surgical results of different techniques in ACL reconstruction surgery. Signorelli et al. in 2013 have shown the importance of preoperative measurements, especially in very unstable knees, in order to suspect secondary restraint lesions. In fact, higher level of preoperative laxities can underline complex injuries, where the isolated ACL reconstruction is not able to restore normal kinematics, and the addition of others procedures may be necessary to gain a better stabilization [49].
Others have used this system to assess physiological contralateral knee stability before ACL reconstruction. In the 2009, Miura and colleagues were the first to perform an in vivo study comparing both contralateral uninjured knee and ACL-injured knee [34].
More recently, Imbert et al. evaluated 32 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery. They also compared with the contralateral uninjured joint. In clinical practice, both knees have always been evaluated, but in a qualitative way. These studies concluded that is important to evaluate objectively the healthy knee before surgery. Quantifying patient’s physiological stability is very helpful for a better surgical approach [15].
41.5 Intraoperative Protocol
Usually navigation system is moved into the operating room and is placed about 2 m away from the operating table, after sterile field is prepared. Surgery is performed as usual, and only after graft is harvested, the tracking systems are fixed into the bones (tibia and femur) and then anatomical landmarks are acquired.
After that, different maneuvers are performed. Software used for kinematic acquisition (KLEE; Orhokey, Lewes, Delaware, USA) evaluates AP translation at 30° and 90° (Lachman and anterior drawer test), VV (varus-valgus) rotation at 0° and 30°, IE (internal-external) rotation at 30° and 90°, and the pivot shift test. Maneuvers are performed and measured twice, before and after graft fixation (Fig. 41.4).
Finally when data is collected, the tracking frames are removed and surgery continues normally. Measurements displayed on screen are valuable information for the surgeon about the stabilizer effect of the surgical technique just performed (Fig. 41.5).
It is well known that the anteroposterior translation can be controlled by many different techniques, but achieving it hasn’t to be the main objective in ACL surgeries, because rotational instability may persist [53, 57, 59].
Literature has shown for many years that the rotational stabilization is the principal goal when we face to unstable knees. In fact the presence of a positive pivot shift test can predict the failure of surgery [19, 23, 25, 45].
Concerning research applications, the navigation system allows to evaluate different reconstruction techniques.
Most of the studies reported the stabilizing effect of double-bundle ACL reconstruction, functionality of each bundle in the reconstructed ACL, quantification of the pivot shift phenomenon, and biomechanical function of ACL remnants, using a navigation system [4, 10, 14, 16–18, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 44, 50, 55, 56, 60].
Ishibashi et al. reported that the posterolateral bundle (PLB) plays an important role in the extension position of the knee and that the anterolateral bundle (AMB) is more important in the flexion position [16].
In a recent systematic review performed by Björnsson et al. [3], they have found an important number of navigated studies comparing the stability achieved between anatomic double bundle and anatomic single bundle. Seventeen studies have compared the results in sagittal plane and they didn’t find significant differences between them.
For the rotational instability, navigated analysis was performed in 20 studies and that only has shown a tendency supporting that DB is superior to control rotational instability. Further, comparisons were performed between anatomic and nonanatomic double-bundle techniques, and they found that nonanatomic double bundle has similar effect in controlling anteroposterior translation and the PS test than the anatomical technique [60].
Navigation was also used to evaluate the addition of a lateral extra-articular plasty (LEAP). This procedure has been proposed for better control dynamic instability, because it has better biomechanical properties in terms of rotational stabilization.
Colombet et al., Monaco et al., and Zaffagnini et al, using similar reconstruction techniques, analyzed the rotational controlling effect of the addition of LEAP to the intra-articular ACL reconstruction. They measured translation and rotation in different surgical times: before surgery, between the fixation of the intra-articular graft and the LEAP, and a last measure when the surgery had finished [2, 6, 36].
The studies comparing the addition of LEAP to the single-bundle techniques have shown an increased control in translation and rotation especially in the lateral compartment. There are statistically significant differences in the anterior translation of the lateral compartment at 90° of flexion and less lateral compartment opening in valgus at 0–30° of flexion when a LEAP was added.
Related with rotational stability, Zaffagnini et al. showed that single-bundle reconstruction with the addition of LEAP controls better the internal and the external rotation at 90° of flexion, whereas Monaco et al. only reported better results when measuring internal rotation, but no significant difference in external rotation [11, 35, 58].
That is confirmed by the systematic review performed this year by Hewison et al. [13] in which they analyzed the effect of LEAP in 29 articles. They also showed statistically significant reduction in pivot shift in favor of the combined procedure.
Despite all the studies performed, we are still having controversies about which is the best technique controlling dynamic instability of the injured knee.
Navigation is considered the gold standard for laxity quantification, and validation of new noninvasive devices must be related to it, because it has demonstrated to be highly precise and reliable quantifying knee laxity after ACL injury.
One of the main advantages is that it allows a real-time quantitative evaluation of the knee conditions at different moments of the surgical procedure, and therefore it allows surgeons to evaluate the knee status during kinematic maneuvers and, with this information given, perform a better and individualized approach.
However, navigation systems are difficult to use in clinical practice because of the invasive nature of the transmitter attachment. To gain wider acceptance of the navigation system in the clinic as a measurement tool of knee stability and kinematics, noninvasive surface markers and the development of dedicated software are also desirable.
41.6 Clinical Results of Navigation-Assisted ACL Reconstruction
The navigation system can improve clinical outcomes and decrease the failure rate of ACL reconstruction by reducing the variability of the tunnel position and creating more accurate femoral and tibial tunnels.
There were five randomized controlled studies that compared navigation-assisted and conventional ACL reconstruction [5, 12, 32, 33, 43] (Table 41.1).
Eggerding et al. [9] reviewed and combined the results of the above studies and did not find statistically or clinically significant differences between navigation-assisted and conventional surgery as determined by IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, knee stability, tunnel placement, or complications. Apart from a significantly increased operative time for randomized participants using the navigation system (between 9.3 and 27 min longer), there was no difference in outcome of navigation versus conventional ACL reconstruction. They concluded that the currently available evidence does not indicate any improvement in clinical outcome when using navigation systems.
Conclusion
Experienced surgeons are skilled in accurate placement of bone tunnels into the native ACL footprint by using a variety of intra-articular landmarks (such as the resident’s ridge) as reference points without employing navigation systems. Furthermore, randomized trials of ACL reconstruction with or without navigation systems have shown that the clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. When using the navigation system, it should be noted that placement of the reference markers requires additional incisions, and complications such as fracture, wound infection, and skin necrosis may occur. Therefore, some surgeons are of the opinion that the use of navigation in ACL reconstruction is not worthwhile. However, navigation systems can provide surgeons with a wide variety of data in real time that cannot be obtained under arthroscopic observation. Additionally, navigation systems are useful for the objective assessment of the tunnel position and for the measurement of knee stability and kinematics of pre- and postoperative surgery. They also serve as an educational tool for less experienced surgeons. Recent developments in computer technology will likely lead to further improvements in navigation systems. Because they allow a wide variety of intraoperative data to be collected, the utility of navigation systems in research is also expected to expand.
References
Bargar WL, Bauer A, Borner M (1998) Primary and revision total hip replacement using the robodoc system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:82–91
Bignozzi S, Zaffagnini S, Lopomo N, Martelli S, Iacono F, Marcacci M (2009) Does a lateral plasty control coupled translation during antero-posterior stress in single-bundle ACL reconstruction? An in vivo study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:65–70. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0651-6
Björnsson H, Desai N, Musahl V, Alentorn-Geli E, Bhandari M, Fu F, Samuelsson K (2015) Is double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to single-bundle? A comprehensive systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(3):696–739. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2666-x, Epub 2013 Sep 15
Brophy RH, Voos JE, Shannon FJ et al (2008) Changes in the length of virtual anterior cruciate ligament fibers during stability testing: a comparison of conventional single-bundle reconstruction and native anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 36:2196–2203
Chouteau J, Benareau I, Testa R et al (2008) Comparative study of knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with or without fluoroscopic assistance: a prospective study of 73 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:945–950
Colombet P (2011) Knee laxity control in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and lateral tenodesis clinical assessment using computer-assisted navigation. Am J Sports Med 39:1248
Degenhart M (2004) Computer-navigated ACL reconstruction with the OrthoPilot. Surg Technol Int 12:245–251
Dessenne V, Lavallee S, Julliard R et al (1995) Computer-assisted knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: first clinical tests. J Image Guid Surg 1:59–64
Eggerding V, Reijman M, Scholten RJ, Verhaar JA, Meuffels DE (2014) Computer-assisted surgery for knee ligament reconstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD007601
Ferretti A, Monaco E, Labianca L et al (2009) Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comprehensive kinematic study using navigation. Am J Sports Med 37:1548–1553
Ferretti A, Monaco E, Vadala A (2014) Rotatory instability of the knee after ACL tear and reconstruction. J Orthop Traumatol 15:75–79. doi:10.1007/s10195-013-0254-y
Hart R, Krejzla J, Svab P, Kocis J, Stipcak V (2008) Outcomes after conventional versus computer-navigated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 24:569–578
Hewison CE, Tran MN, Kaniki N et al (2015) Lateral Extra-articular tenodesis reduces rotational laxity when combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review of the literature. Arthroscopy 31:2022–2034
Hofbauer M, Valentin P, Kdolsky R et al (2010) Rotational and translational laxity after computer-navigated single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1201–1207
Imbert P, Belvedere C, Leardini A (2014) Human knee laxity in ACL-deficient and physiological contralateral joints: intra-operative measurements using a navigation system. Biomed Eng Online 13:86. doi:10.1186/1475-925X-13-86
Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Tazawa K, Sato H, Toh S (2005) Intraoperative evaluation of the anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the OrthoPilot navigation system. Orthopedics 28:s1277–s1282
Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Tsukada H, Toh S (2008) Intraoperative biomechanical evaluation of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a navigation system: comparison of hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. Am J Sports Med 36:1903–1912
Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Yamamoto Y, Tsukada H, Toh S (2009) Navigation evaluation of the pivot-shift phenomenon during double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: is the posterolateral bundle more important? Arthroscopy 25:488–495
Jonsson H, Riklund-Ahlström K, Lind J (2004) Positive pivot shift after ACL reconstruction predicts later osteoarthrosis: 63 patients followed 5–9 years after surgery. Acta Orthop Scand 75(5):594–599
Kanaya A, Ochi M, Deie M et al (2009) Intraoperative evaluation of anteroposterior and rotational stabilities in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: lower femoral tunnel placed single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:907–913
Kendoff D, Citak M, Voos J, Pearle AD (2009) Surgical navigation in knee ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 28:41–50
Klos TV, Habets RJ, Banks AZ et al (1998) Computer assistance in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:65–69
Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ (2004) Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 32(3):629–634
Lane CG, Warren RF, Stanford FC, Kendoff D, Pearle AD (2008) In vivo analysis of the pivot shift phenomenon during computer navigated ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:487–492
Leitze Z, Losee RE, Jokl P, Johnson TR, Feagin JA (2005) Implications of the pivot shift in the ACL-deficient knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:229–236
Lopomo N, Bignozzi S, Martelli S et al (2009) Reliability of a navigation system for intra-operative evaluation of antero-posterior knee joint laxity. Comput Biol Med 39:280–285
Lopomo N, Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S, Visani A, Marcacci M (2010) Pivot-shift test: analysis and quantification of knee laxity parameters using a navigation system. J Orthop Res 28:164–169
Lopomo N, Zaffagnini S, Amis AA (2013) Quantifying the pivot shift test: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:767–783
Lopomo N, Signorelli C, Bonanzinga T et al (2014) Can rotatory knee laxity be predicted in isolated anterior cruciate ligament surgery? Int Orthop 38:1167–1172
Maeda S, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Yamamoto Y, Toh S (2011) Intraoperative navigation evaluation of tibial translation after resection of anterior cruciate ligament remnants. Arthroscopy 27:1203–1210
Martelli S, Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S et al (2007) KIN-Nav navigation system for kinematic assessment in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: features, use, and perspectives. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 221:725–737
Mauch F, Apic G, Becker U, Bauer G (2007) Differences in the placement of the tibial tunnel during reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with and without computer-assisted navigation. Am J Sports Med 35:1824–1832
Meuffels DE, Reijman M, Verhaar JA (2012) Computer-assisted surgery is not more accurate or precise than conventional arthroscopic ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1538–1545
Miura K, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E et al (2010) Intraoperative comparison of knee laxity between anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee and contralateral stable knee using navigation system. Arthroscopy 26:1203–1211
Monaco E, Labianca L, Conteduca F, De Carli A, Ferretti A (2007) Double bundle or single bundle plus extraarticular tenodesis in ACL reconstruction? A CAOS study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(10):1168–1174
Monaco E, Maestri B, Conteduca F, Mazza D, Iorio C, Ferretti A (2014) Extra-articular ACL reconstruction and pivot shift: in vivo dynamic evaluation with navigation. Am J Sports Med 42(7):1669–1674. doi:10.1177/0363546514532336
Nakagawa T, Hiraoka H, Fukuda A et al (2007) Fluoroscopic-based navigation-assisted placement of the tibial tunnel in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 23:5
Nakamae A, Ochi M, Deie M et al (2010) Biomechanical function of anterior cruciate ligament remnants: how long do they contribute to knee stability after injury in patients with complete tears? Arthroscopy 26:1577–1585
Nakase J, Toratani T, Kosaka M, Ohashi Y, Tsuchiya H (2013) Roles of ACL remnants in knee stability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2101–2106
Nolte LP, Visarius H, Arm E et al (1995) Computer-aided fixation of spinal implants. J Image Guid Surg 1:88–93
Pearle AD, Solomon DJ, Wanich T et al (2007) Reliability of navigated knee stability examination: a cadaveric evaluation. Am J Sports Med 35:1315–1320
Picard F, DiGioia AM, Moody J et al (2001) Accuracy in tunnel placement for ACL reconstruction. Comparison of traditional arthroscopic and computer-assisted navigation techniques. Comput Aided Surg 6:279–289
Plaweski S, Cazal J, Rosell P, Merloz P (2006) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using navigation: a comparative study on 60 patients. Am J Sports Med 34:542–552
Plaweski S, Grimaldi M, Courvoisier A, Wimsey S (2011) Intraoperative comparisons of knee kinematics of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1277–1286
Ristanis S, Stergiou N, Patras K, Vasiliadis HS, Giakas G, Georgoulis AD (2005) Excessive tibial rotation during high-demand activities is not restored by anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 21:1323e1329
Sati M, Staubli H, Bourquin Y, Kunz M, Nolte LP (2002) Real-time computerized in situ guidance system for ACL graft placement. Comput Aided Surg 7:25–40
Schep NW, Stavenuiter MH, Diekerhof CH et al (2005) Intersurgeon variance in computer-assisted planning of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 21:942–947
Shafizadeh S, Balke M, Wegener S et al (2011) Precision of tunnel positioning in navigated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 27:1268–1274
Signorelli C, Bonanzinga T, Lopomo N, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bignozzi S, Filardo G, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M (2013) Do pre-operative knee laxity values influence post-operative ones after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:e219–e224
Song EK, Oh LS, Gill TJ et al (2009) Prospective comparative study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the double-bundle and single-bundle techniques. Am J Sports Med 37:1705–1711
Taketomi S, Inui H, Nakamura K et al (2012) Three-dimensional fluoroscopic navigation guidance for femoral tunnel creation in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech 1(1):e95–e99. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2012.04.003
Taketomi S, Inui H, Sanada T et al (2014) Remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a three-dimensional fluoroscopic navigation system. Knee Surg Relat Res 26:168–176
Tashman S, Collon D, Anderson K, Kolowich P, Anderst W (2004) Abnormal rotational knee motion during running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 32(4):975–983
Tsuda E, Ishibashi Y, Fukuda A, Tsukada H, Toh S (2007) Validation of computer-assisted double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopedics 30:S136–S140
Yamamoto Y, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E et al (2010) Comparison between clinical grading and navigation data of knee laxity in ACL-deficient knees. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 2:27
Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S, Martelli S, Imakiire N, Lopomo N, Marcacci M (2006) New intraoperative protocol for kinematics evaluation of ACL reconstruction: preliminary results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:811–816
Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S, Martelli S, Lopomo N, Marcacci M (2007) Does ACL reconstruction restore knee stability in combined lesions? An in vivo study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:95–99
Zaffagnini S, Signorelli C, Lopomo N, Bonanzinga T, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bignozzi S, Visani A, Marcacci M (2011) Anatomic double-bundle and over-the-top single-bundle with additional extra-articular tenodesis: an in vivo quantitative assessment of knee laxity in two different ACL reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1589-7
Zaffagnini S, Bonanzinga T, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Giodano G, Bruni D, Bignozzi S, Lopomo N, Marcacci M (2011) Does chronic medial collateral ligament laxity influence the outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A prospective evaluation with a minimum three-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 93(8):1060–1064. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B8.26183
Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Signorelli C, Lopomo N, Grassi A, Bonanzinga T, Nitri M, Marcacci M (2014) Anatomic and nonanatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vivo kinematic analysis. Am J Sports Med 42(3):708–715. doi:10.1177/0363546513519070, Epub 2014 Feb 11
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 ISAKOS
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maeda, S., Ishibashi, Y., Zaffagnini, S., Urrizola, F., Signorelli, C., Grassi, A. (2017). The Role of Navigation Systems in ACL Reconstruction. In: Nakamura, N., Zaffagnini, S., Marx, R., Musahl, V. (eds) Controversies in the Technical Aspects of ACL Reconstruction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52742-9_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52742-9_41
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-52740-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-52742-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)