Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 5;58(12):1787.
doi: 10.3390/medicina58121787.

Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes According to the Presence or Absence of a Posterior Draw Force during Graft Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Jin-Ho Cho  1 , Hyun Il Lee  1 , Jae Won Heo  1 , Sung-Sahn Lee  1
Affiliations

Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes According to the Presence or Absence of a Posterior Draw Force during Graft Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Jin-Ho Cho et al. Medicina (Kaunas). .

Abstract

Background and Objectives: A reduction forced toward the posterior side during graft fixation may help to lessen anterior tibial translation after ACL reconstruction. The purpose was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of graft fixation when a posterior draw was used and when it was not used during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. Materials and Methods: Of 110 patients who had undergone primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between January 2017 and August 2020, in all, 76 patients had been operated on without a posterior draw (non-draw group), and 34 patients had received surgery with a posterior draw (draw group). The results of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) indexes, the Lysholm scores, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores, and side-to-side difference (STSD) on stress radiography were compared between the two groups. Results: The postoperative WOMAC indexes, Lysholm scores, and IKDC subjective scores were similar across both groups. Postoperative STSD (2.4 ± 2.2 for the non-draw group vs. 2.0 ± 2.2 for the draw group; p = 0.319) and change in STSD (3.5 ± 3.5 for preoperative STSD vs. 4.3 ± 4.4 for postoperative STSD; p = 0.295) were not superior in the draw group. Conclusions: The take-home message is that graft fixation with a posterior draw during ACL reconstruction did not result in significantly better postoperative stability. The postoperative clinical outcomes were similar between both groups.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; draw; graft.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic view of (A) a posterior draw force (black arrow) applied and (B) a posterior draw force not applied during graft fixation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart describing the patients enrolled in the study.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A femoral tunnel was formed using the transanteromedial portal method. A standard anteromedial portal was used for the viewing portal, and a far anteromedial portal was used for the working portal. The center of the anatomical footprint was marked with a microfracture awl. The femoral tunnel was formed using a cannulated reamer.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Intraoperative view of (A) a posterior draw force applied and (B) a posterior draw force not applied during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Measurement of preoperative and postoperative anterior tibial translation on anterior stress radiography. (yellow lines) Two perpendicular lines were drawn tangentially to the most posterior contour of the femoral condyle and tibial plateau. Anterior tibial translation was defined as the distance between the two perpendicular lines.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Sanders T.L., Maradit Kremers H., Bryan A.J., Larson D.R., Dahm D.L., Levy B.A., Stuart M.J., Krych A.J. Incidence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears and Reconstruction: A 21-Year Population-Based Study. Am. J. Sports Med. 2016;44:1502–1507. doi: 10.1177/0363546516629944. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kurtoglu A., Basar B., Basar G., Gezginaslan O., Basar H. Small Size Autograft versus Large Size Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2021;13:47–52. doi: 10.4055/cios20008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Longo U.G., Nagai K., Salvatore G., Cella E., Candela V., Cappelli F., Ciccozzi M., Denaro V. Epidemiology of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery in Italy: A 15-Year Nationwide Registry Study. J. Clin. Med. 2021;10:223. doi: 10.3390/jcm10020223. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bowers A.L., Bedi A., Lipman J.D., Potter H.G., Rodeo S.A., Pearle A.D., Warren R.F., Altchek D.W. Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament tunnel position and graft obliquity with transtibial and anteromedial portal femoral tunnel reaming techniques using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:1511–1522. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kopf S., Forsythe B., Wong A.K., Tashman S., Anderst W., Irrgang J.J., Fu F.H. Nonanatomic tunnel position in traditional transtibial single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2010;92:1427–1431. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00655. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms