Accuracy in tunnel placement for ACL reconstruction. Comparison of traditional arthroscopic and computer-assisted navigation techniques

Abstract

The purpose of this randomized, prospective study was to compare accuracy in tunnel placement as performed with a traditional arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique and with KneeNavTM ACL, a computer-assisted surgical navigation technique. Two surgeons experienced in ACL reconstruction, but inexperienced in computer-assisted surgical navigation technique, each randomly used traditional arthroscopic guides or KneeNavTM ACL to drill a tunnel in twenty identical foam knees. Placement of the resulting tibial and femoral tunnels was measured with a computer-assisted digitizing method and compared to traditional biplanar radiographs. Statistical analysis with Student's t-test was used to compare the distance from the ideal tunnel placement to the femoral and tibial tunnels. Accuracy of tunnel placement with KneeNavTM ACL was significantly better than that obtained with the traditional arthroscopic technique. Distances from the ideal tunnel placement to the femoral and tibial tunnels were 4.2 +/- 1.8 mm (mean +/- SD) and 4.9 +/- 2.3 mm, respectively, for the traditional arthroscopic technique, and 2.7 +/- 1.9 mm (femur) and 3.4 +/- 2.3 mm (tibia) for KneeNavTM ACL. These differences were statistically different. Tunnel placement for ACL reconstruction with KneeNavTM ACL, an image-based, computer-assisted surgical navigation device with a simple and intuitive interface, was more accurate than with the traditional arthroscopic technique.