Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries
Do you wish to request the book?
A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A Biomechanical Comparison of the Arciero and LaPrade Reconstruction for Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries
2019
Overview
Background:
Injury to the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee requires reconstruction to restore coronal and rotary stability. Two commonly used procedures are the Arciero reconstruction technique (ART) and the LaPrade reconstruction technique (LRT). To the authors’ knowledge, these techniques have not been biomechanically compared against one another.
Purpose:
To identify if one of these reconstruction techniques better restores stability to a PLC-deficient knee and if concomitant injury to the proximal tibiofibular joint or anterior cruciate ligament affects these results.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
Eight matched-paired cadaveric specimens from the midfemur to toes were used. Each specimen was tested in 4 phases: intact PLC (phase 1), PLC sectioned (phase 2), PLC reconstructed (ART or LRT) (phase 3), and tibiofibular (phase 4A) or anterior cruciate ligament (phase 4B) sectioning with PLC reconstructed. Varus angulation and external rotation at 0º, 20º, 30º, 60º, and 90º of knee flexion were quantified at each phase.
Results:
In phase 3, both reconstructions were effective at restoring laxity back to the intact state. However, in phase 4A, both reconstructions were ineffective at stabilizing the joint owing to tibiofibular instability. In phase 4B, both reconstructions had the potential to restrict varus angulation motion. There were no statistically significant differences found between reconstruction techniques for varus angulation or external rotation at any degree of flexion in phase 3 or 4.
Conclusion:
The LRT and ART are equally effective at restoring stability to knees with PLC injuries. Neither reconstruction technique fully restores stability to knees with combined PLC and proximal tibiofibular joint injuries.
Clinical Relevance:
Given these findings, surgeons may select their reconstruction technique based on their experience and training and the specific needs of their patients.
Publisher
SAGE Publications,Sage Publications Ltd
Subject
