Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Editor

Personal info

View

About

Terms

Javascript disabled

Please enable Javascript support in your browser to use this application.

Instructions on how to enable JavaScript on different browsers can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23852.

[edit this page]

Musahl, V. et al.

Anterior cruciate ligament tunnel placement: Comparison of insertion site anatomy with the guidelines of a computer-assisted surgical system.

PURPOSE: With the development of computer-assisted surgery ( CAS) systems, the surgeon's ability to operate a CAS planning station will become essential. For example, default parameters in computed tomographic (CT) data are being used to place tunnels in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The goal of this study was to compare the location of the insertion sites in ACL reconstruction anatomically, via roentgenographic images and via CT scan data and to validate these tunnel placement parameters. Type of Study: Cadaveric analysis. METHODS: Eight human cadaveric knees were marked with 6 copper wires 1 mm in diameter around the circumference of the insertions of the ACL. Using lateral roentgenograms and CT scans that were subsequently transferred to the CAS planning station, the tunnel locations were determined. These were based on a distance from the back of the condyle (location A) and from the roof of the notch (location B) on the femur and on a distance posterior from the tuberosity to the posterior margin along the tibial plateau, which is set as the CAS planning station's default. Locations according to roentgenograms and CT scans were then compared and the accuracy of the CAS planning station was assessed. RESULTS: Comparison of roentgenograms and CT revealed a femoral insertion at 27.5% +/- 3.2% and 26.9% +/- 3.5% (roentgenograms) and 26.6% +/- 1.9% and 26.3% +/- 2.4% (CT), respectively. The CAS planning station provided a tunnel location that was 1.3 +/- 1.0 mm (0.3 to 2.5 mm) away from the actual femoral ACL insertion. The tibial tunnel was placed according to the copper wire markers and was found to be at 46.2% +/- 2.8% (roentgenograms) and 45.4% +/- 2.1% (CT). No statistical differences between position in CT and roentgenograms could be detected (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: The compared methodologies showed similar locations of the ACL insertions, assuring accurate preoperative planning with the CAS system. However, the CAS system requires adjustment to each individual knee anatomy.[1]

References

Anterior cruciate ligament tunnel placement: Comparison of insertion site anatomy with the guidelines of a computer-assisted surgical system. Musahl, V., Burkart, A., Debski, R.E., Van Scyoc, A., Fu, F.H., Woo, S.L. Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. (2003) [Pubmed]

Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenes Open Access Licence Privacy Policy Terms of Use apsburg

The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.