The anterolateral ligament (ALL) is considered as an important stabilizer of the knee joint. This ligament prevents anterolateral subluxation of the proximal tibia on the femur when the knee is flexed and internally rotated. Injury of the ALL was not investigated in patients with knee dislocation. The aim of the current research is to study the prevalence and characteristics of ALL injury in dislocated knees. A retrospective review of charts and radiological images was done for patients who underwent multiligamentous knee reconstruction surgery for knee dislocation in our institution from May 2008 to December 2016. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to describe the ALL injury. The association of ALL injury with other variables related to the injury and the patient's background features was examined. Forty-eight patients (49 knees) were included. The mean age of the patients was 32.3 ± 10.6 years. High energy trauma was the mechanism of dislocation in 28 (57.1%) knees. Thirty-one knees (63.3%) were classified as knee dislocation (KD) type IV. Forty-five (91.8%) knees had a complete ALL injury and three (6.1%) knees had incomplete ALL injury. Forty (81.6%) knees had a complete ALL injury at the proximal fibres of the ALL, while 23 (46.9%) knees had complete distal ALL injury. None of the 46 (93.9%) knees with lateral collateral ligament (LCL) injury had normal proximal ALL fibres (p = 0.012). Injury to the distal fibres of the ALL, as well as overall ALL injury, were not associated with any other variables (p >0.05). Moreover, all patients with associated tibial plateau fractures (9, 18.4%) had abnormality of the proximal fibres of the ALL (p = 0.033). High grade ALL injury is highly prevalent among dislocated knees. The outcomes of reconstructing the ALL in multiligamentous knee reconstruction surgery should be investigated in future studies

Introduction. There is little information available to surgeons regarding how the lateral soft-tissue structures prevent instability in knees implanted with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study was to quantify the lateral soft-tissue contributions to stability following cruciate retaining (CR) TKA. Methods. Nine cadaveric knees with CR TKA implants (PFC Sigma; DePuy Synthes Joint Reconstruction) were tested in a robotic system (Fig. 1) at full extension, 30°, 60°, and 90° flexion angles. ±90 N anterior-posterior force, ±8 Nm varus-valgus and ±5 Nm internal-external torque were applied at each flexion angle. The anterolateral structures (ALS, including the iliotibial band, anterolateral ligament and anterolateral capsule), the lateral collateral ligament (LCL), the popliteus tendon complex (Pop T) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) were then sequentially transected. After each transection the kinematics obtained from the original loads were replayed, and the decrease in force / moment equated to the relative contributions of each soft-tissue to stabilising the applied loads. Results. In the CR TKA knee, the LCL was found to be the primary restraint to varus laxity (Fig. 2, an average 56% across all flexion angles), and was significant in internal-external rotational stability (28% and 26% respectively) and anterior drawer (16%). The ALS restrained 25% of internal rotation (Fig. 3), whilst the PCL was significant in posterior drawer only at 60° and 90° flexion. The Pop T was not found to be significant in any tests. Conclusion. This study has for the first time delineated the relative contributions of lateral structures to stability in the implanted knee. It was confirmed that the LCL is the major lateral structure in CR TKA stability throughout the arc of flexion. In the event of LCL deficiency, stability of the knee may only be restored by either changing to a more constrained implant or performing a reconstruction of the ligament. Furthermore, care should be taken when releasing the LCL to correct a valgus deformity as it may result in a combined rotational laxity pattern that cannot be overcome by the other passive lateral structures or the PCL. For figures, please contact authors directly

Injury to the anterolateral ligament (ALL) has been reported to contribute to high-grade anterolateral laxity following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Failure to address ALL injury has been suggested as a cause of persistent rotational laxity following ACL reconstruction. However, lateral meniscus posterior root (LMPR) tears have also has been shown to cause increased internal rotation and anterior translation of the knee. Due to the anatomic relationship of the ALL and the lateral meniscus, we hypothesise that the ALL and lateral meniscus work synergistically, and that a tear to the LMPR will have the same effect on anterolateral laxity as an ALL tear in the ACL deficient knee. Sixteen fresh frozen cadaveric knee specimens were potted into a hip simulator(femur) and a six degree-of-freedom load cell (tibia). Two rigid optical trackers were inserted into the proximal femur and distal tibia, allowing for the motion of the tibia with respect to the femur to be tracked during biomechanical tests. A series of points on the femur and tibia were digitised to create bone coordinate systems that were used to calculate the kinematic variables. Biomechanical testing involved applying a 5Nm internal rotation moment to the tibia while the knee was in full extension and tested sequentially in the following three conditions: i) ACLintact; ii) Partial ACL injury (ACLam) – anteromedial bundle sectioned; iii) Full ACL injury (ACLfull). The specimens were then randomised to either have the ALL sectioned first (ALLsec) followed by the LMPRsec or vice versa. Internal rotation and anterior translation of the tibia with respect to the femur were calculated. A mixed two-way (serial sectioning by ALL section order) repeated measures ANOVA (alpha = 0.05). Compared to the ACLintact condition, internal rotation was found to be 1.78° (p=0.06), 3.74° (p=0.001), and 3.84° (p=0.001) greater following ACLfull, LMPRsec and ALLsec respectively. LMPRsec and the ALLsec resulted in approximately 20 of additional internal rotation (p=0.004 and p=0.01, respectively) compared with the ACL deficient knee (ACLfull). No difference was observed between the ALL and LMPR sectioned states, or whether the ALL was sectioned before or after the LMPR (p=0.160). A trend of increasing anterior translation was observed when the 5Nm internal rotation moment was applied up until the ACL was fully sectioned; however, these differences were not significant (p=0.070). The ALL and LMPR seem to have a synergistic relationship in aiding the ACL in controlling anterolateral rotational laxity. High-grade anterolateral laxity following ACL injury may be attributed to injuries of the ALL and/or the LMPR. We suggest that the lateral meniscus should be thought of as part of the anterolateral capsulomeniscal complex (i.e., LM, ITB, and ALL) that acts as a stabiliser of anterolateral rotation in conjunction with the ACL

The history of knee mechanics studies and the evolution of knee arthroplasty design have been well reported through the last decade (e.g. [1],[2]). Through the early 2000's, there was near consensus on the dominant motions occurring in the healthy knee among much of the biomechanics and orthopaedic communities. However, the past decade has seen the application of improved measurement techniques to permit accurate measurement of natural knee motion during activities like walking and running. The results of these studies suggest healthy knee motion is more complex than previously thought, and therefore, design of suitable arthroplasty devices more difficult. The purpose of this paper is to briefly review the knee biomechanics literature before 2008, to present newer studies for walking and running, and to discuss the implications of these findings for the design of knee replacement implants that seek to replicate physiologic knee motions. Many surgeons point to Brantigan and Voshell [3], an anatomic study of over one hundred specimens focusing on the ligamentous and passive stabilizers of the knee, as being an important influence in their thinking about normal knee function. M.A.R. Freeman and colleagues in London claim particular influence from this work, which motivated their extensive series of MR-based knee studies reported in 2000 [4,5,6]. These papers, perhaps more than any others, are responsible for the common impression that knee kinematics are well and simply described as having a ‘medial pivot’ pattern, where the medial condyle remains stationary on the tibial plateau while the lateral condyle translates posteriorly with knee flexion. Indeed, subsequent studies in healthy and arthritic knees during squatting and kneeling [7,8,9] and healthy and ACL-deficient knees during deep knee bends [10,11] show patterns of motion quite similar to those reported by Freeman and coworkers. These studies make a convincing case for how the healthy knee moves during squatting, kneeling and lunging activities. However, these studies are essentially silent on knee motions during ambulatory activities like walking, running and stair-climbing; activities which most agree are critically important to a high-function lifestyle. In 2008 Koo and Andriacchi reported a motion laboratory study of walking in 46 young healthy individuals and found that the stance phase knee center of rotation was LATERAL in 100% of study participants [12]. One year later, Kozanek et al. published a bi-plane fluoroscopy study of healthy knees walking on a treadmill and corroborated the findings of Koo and Andriacchi, i.e. the center of rotation in healthy knees walking was lateral [13]. Isberg et al. published in 2011 a dynamic radiostereometric study of knee motions in healthy, ACL-deficient and ACL-reconstructed knees during a weight-bearing flexion-to-extension activity, and showed consistent anterior-to-posterior medial condylar translations with knee extension, accompanied by relatively little lateral condylar translation [14]. Hoshino and Tashman reported in 2012 another dynamic radiostereometric analysis of healthy knees during downhill running and concluded “While the location of the knee rotational axis may be dependent on the specific loading condition, during … walking and running … it is positioned primarily on the lateral side of the joint. ”[15] Finally, Claes et al. reported in late 2013 the detailed anatomy of the anterolateral ligament (ALL), another structure serving to stabilize the lateral knee compartment near extension, roughly in parallel with the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) [16]. Studies since 2008 [9,12–16] show knee motions during walking, running and pivoting activities do not fit the “medial pivot” pattern of motion, but rather point to a “lateral pivot” pattern of knee motion consistent with the stabilizing roles of the ACL and ALL. Having a medial center of rotation in flexion and a lateral center of rotation in extension greatly complicates knee arthroplasty design if the goal is to reproduce kinematics approximating those observed in the natural knee. Consistent kinematics having a fixed center of rotation implies joint stabilizing structures or surfaces, not simply articular laxity allowing the knee to move as forces dictate. Thus, a total knee arthroplasty design seeking to reproduce physiologic motions may need to provide distinct means for controlling tibiofemoral motion in both extension and flexion. Recent studies of natural knee motions have made the implant designer's job more difficult!