==== Front J Exp Orthop J Exp Orthop Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics 2197-1153 Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg 37389669 630 10.1186/s40634-023-00630-y Original Paper More anterior placement of femoral tunnel position in ACL-R is associated with postoperative meniscus tears http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1298-7514 Hughes Jonathan D. Hughesjd3@upmc.edu 12 Gabrielli Alexandra S. 1 Dalton Jonathan F. 1 Raines Benjamin T. 34 Dewald Daniel 5 Musahl Volker 12 Lesniak Bryson P. 1 1 grid.412689.0 0000 0001 0650 7433 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, 3200 S. Water St, Pittsburgh, PA 15203 USA 2 grid.8761.8 0000 0000 9919 9582 Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden 3 grid.417696.b 0000 0000 9413 275X The Hughston Clinic, Fort Walton Beach, FL USA 4 The Hughston Foundation, Inc, Columbus, GA USA 5 grid.259670.f 0000 0001 2369 3143 Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI USA 30 6 2023 30 6 2023 12 2023 10 661 3 2023 14 6 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between tunnel position in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and postoperative meniscus tears. Methods This was a single institution, case–control study of 170 patients status-post ACL-R (2010–2019) separated into two matched groups (sex, age, BMI, graft type). Group 1—symptomatic, operative meniscus tears (both de novo and recurrent) after ACL-R. Group 2—no postoperative meniscus tears. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were measured by 2 authors via lateral knee radiographs that were used to measure two ratios (a/t and b/h). Ratio a/t was defined as distance from the tunnel center to dorsal most subchondral contour of the lateral femoral condyle (a) divided by total sagittal diameter of the lateral condyle along Blumensaat’s line (t). The ratio b/h was defined as distance between the tunnel and Blumensaat’s line (b) divided by maximum intercondylar notch height (h). Wilcoxon sign-ranks paired test was used to compare measurements between groups (alpha set at p < 0.05). Results Group 1 had average follow up of 45 months and Group 2 had average follow up of 22 months. There were no significant demographic differences between Groups 1 and 2. Group 1—a/t was 32.0% (± 10.2), which was significantly more anterior than group 2, 29.3% (± 7.3; p < 0.05). There was no difference in average femoral tunnel ratio b/h or tibial tunnel placement between groups. Conclusions A relationship exists between more anterior/less anatomic femoral tunnel position and the presence of recurrent or de novo, operative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Surgeons performing ACL-R should strive for recreation of native anatomy via proper tunnel placement to maximize postoperative outcomes. Level of evidence Level III. Keywords Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) Meniscus Meniscal repair Graft failure Femoral tunnel position issue-copyright-statement© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2023 ==== Body pmcBackground The shift from isometric to anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) in the last two decades is due to evidence that an anatomic strategy more closely restores native knee kinematics [12, 13, 16]. Incorrect femoral tunnel position has been reported as the most common cause of technical graft failure [8, 10, 14, 17]. A recent study demonstrated anterior femoral tunnel placement increased the risk of ACL graft failure compared to posterior femoral tunnel placement [5]. A separate study found anterior femoral and tibial tunnel placement increased the risk for graft impingement, which may be associated with decreased patient reported outcomes, graft degeneration, and re-rupture [21]. Integrity of the ACL is considered a prerequisite for meniscal repair—it has been demonstrated that insufficient reconstruction with residual rotation and antero-posterior laxity after ACL-R significantly increases the risk of subsequent de novo or recurrent meniscus tear [6, 19]. Thus, it appears that proper functioning of the ACL and the survival of the menisci are interrelated. However, a paucity of data exists regarding directly investigating the relationship between anatomic restoration of femoral and tibial tunnel positioning during ACL-R and the incidence of subsequent meniscus tears postoperatively. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether or not more anatomic femoral or tibial tunnel position was correlated with the incidence of postoperative meniscus tears. It was hypothesized that relatively non-anatomic position of the femoral and tibial tunnels would be associated with increased incidence of subsequent symptomatic, operative meniscus tears following ACL-R. Our rationale behind this hypothetical association was the conjecture that a relatively non-anatomic positioned ACL graft may inadequately restore the protective role that the ACL plays on the menisci via antero-posterior and rotatory constraint of the tibiofemoral joint. Material and methods Inclusion/Exclusion An Institutional Review Board (STUDY1903019)-approved retrospective chart review was performed using patients who had undergone ACL-R, with or without concurrent meniscus repair, between 2010 and 2019 at one institution. A search of the electronic medical record from 2010 to 2019 identified 1373 primary ACL-R procedures, which were initially reviewed for possible inclusion (Fig. 1). Inclusion criteria consisted of patients with adequate postoperative imaging, who had undergone an ACL-R with or without concurrent meniscus repair. Lateral knee radiographs were deemed adequate if they had < 6 mm of overlap between the posterior halves of the medial and lateral condyles as previously defined [18]. Patients were then excluded for inadequate imaging, double-bundle ACL-R, over the top ACL-R, single bundle ACL-R augmentation, multi-ligamentous injury, concomitant cartilage restoration surgery, or if their initial surgery constituted a revision ACL-R.Fig. 1 Flowchart of Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. ACL-R: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction For included patients, all ACL-R surgeries were performed by one of five sports fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons at the same institution. All patients were initially seen in clinic and identified as having an operative ACL tear via Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). MRIs were also reviewed for the presence of any concomitant meniscus injury or other ligamentous injury concurrent with ACL tear. Graft selection was based on surgeon preference after discussions with individual patients. All patients performed similar postoperative rehabilitation protocols, per the standards of practice at our institution. Patients were seen at similar intervals postoperatively. Postoperative anteroposterior (AP) and lateral x-rays of the operative knee were performed on all patients. Postoperative MRI imaging was only performed if there was concern for graft failure or other re-injury. Matching A total of 468 patients met initial inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 85 patients had postoperative meniscus tears and 383 patients did not have a postoperative meniscus tear. The 85 patients with postoperative meniscus tears were then matched to 85 patients (N = 170) based on age (within 3 years), sex, body mass index (BMI) (mean difference 4.4), graft type (allograft versus autograft), and preoperative tear morphology out of the remaining 383 patients in a consecutive manner. These 170 patients were separated into two groups. Group 1 was composed of patients who had a confirmed operative recurrent or de novo meniscus tear that presented during follow-up after ACL-R. MRI and subsequent arthroscopy were used to verify whether tears identified during follow-up were recurrent or de novo. Recurrent tears were defined as being of the same laterality and morphology as the original meniscus tear identified and repaired at index ACL-R. De novo tears were defined as of different laterality and/or of different morphology as the original meniscus tear identified and repaired at index ACL-R. Group 2 was composed of a matched cohort of patients who did not present after ACL-R with symptomatic meniscus tears status-post ACL-R. Demographic data as well as meniscus tear details were collected for each group. Information included age, BMI, presence/laterality/morphology of concurrent meniscus tear at time of ACL-R, and presence/laterality/morphology of recurrent or de novo tears identified during follow-up after ACL-R. Imaging analysis For both groups, all femoral and tibial tunnel positions were measured by two blinded reviewers using the method described by Bernard et al. [3] (Fig. 2) and Staubli et al. [22]. The measurements were performed by two fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons. On the femoral side, this method involves establishing a center point (k) of the femoral insertion of the ACL by measuring the anterior, posterior, proximal, and distal most borders of the femoral ACL insertion on a perfect lateral radiograph of the knee. After k is established, four distances are measured on the lateral radiograph. These distances include: t, defined as the total sagittal diameter of the lateral condyle measured along Blumensaat’s line; h, the maximum intercondylar notch height, and a, the distance of point k from the most dorsal subchondral contour of the lateral femoral condyle, and b, which is the distance of point k from Blumensaat’s line. These measurements were obtained for each patient and compared to Bernard et al.’s recommendations to assess the adequacy of anatomic positioning of the femoral ACL insertion after ACL-R. Bernard et al. report that the average anatomic position of the femoral insertion of the ACL with respect to the total sagittal diameter of the lateral femoral condyle, represented by the ratio a/t, as 24.8%, and that the average anatomic position of the femoral insertion of the ACL with respect to the notch height, represented by the ratio b/h, as 28.8% [3]. Tibial tunnel placement for each patient was determined on the same lateral radiographs by measuring the mid-sagittal tibial diameter and the center of the tibial attachment area of the ACL from the anterior tibial margin. The center of the tibial attachment was reported as a percentage of the anterior to posterior width. A prior study has determined the normal center of the anatomic footprint to be 43% the anterior to posterior width of the tibia [22].Fig. 2 Illustration depicting the Bernard quadrant method used for radiographic measurements. Center point (K) of the center of the femoral tunnel. The other distances include: t, defined as the total sagittal diameter of the lateral condyle measured along Blumensaat’s line; h, the maximum intercondylar notch height, and a, the distance of point K from the most dorsal subchondral contour of the lateral femoral condyle, and b, which is the distance of point K from Blumensaat’s line Statistical analysis Continuous variables for each group were compared using Student’s t-tests. Categorical data was compared using Fisher’s test with a contingency table. A p-value < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. A Wilcoxon sign-ranks paired test was used to compare post-operative femoral tunnel position measurements between groups and against averages reported by Bernard et al. [3]. Finally, an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the measurements produced by the authors using R statistics software. The inter-rater reliability (ICC: 0.87—0.88) and intra-rater reliability (ICC: 0.60—0.90) on the femoral side were found to be good to excellent. The inter-rater reliability (ICC: 0.78) and intra-rater reliability (ICC: 0.58 – 0.87) on the tibial side were also found to be good to excellent. A sample size calculation was performed for independent study groups with continuous endpoints. For this calculation, alpha was set at 0.05 and power was set at 80%. A required sample size of 32 patients per group was required to detect a difference between the group with a diagnosed meniscus tear during follow-up and the group without a diagnosed meniscus tear during follow-up of at least one standard deviation in either dimension. Standard deviation was defined as 2.2% in the posteroanterior (PA) dimension and 2.5% in the proximal–distal (PD) dimension. Results Demographics Group 1 and Group 2 were both composed of 85 patients each. Group 1 was demographically similar to Group 2 in terms of age, sex, average BMI, and laterality/morphology of meniscus tears at time of index ACL-R (Table 1). In contrast, Group 2 had significantly more meniscus tears at index ACL-R compared to Group 1 (Group 1: 60/85 (70.6%) patients versus Group 2: 75/85 (88%) patients with a meniscus tear at index ACL-R, p < 0.05). The percentage of meniscus tears repaired at the time of index ACL-R was similar between groups (Group 1: 53/60 (83%) versus Group 2: 70/75 (93.3%) meniscus tears repaired at ACL-R, n.s). Group 1 had average follow up of 45 months and Group 2 had average follow up of 24 months.Table 1 Demographics table and p-values Group 1 Group 2 p-value Demographics Age 25.7 ± 4.04 25.8 ± 4.03 n.s Sex 44F, 41 M n.s BMI 18.1 20.0 n.s Graft Type Allograft 14/85 (16%) 14/85 (16%) n.s Autograft 71/85 (84%) 71/85 (84%) Graft Material (Allograft) Hamstring 5/14 (36%) 2/14 (14%) n.s Patella bone-tendon-bone 1/14 (7%) 2/14 (14%) Achilles 2/14 (14%) 1/14 (7%) Anterior Tibialis 6/14 (43%) 9/14 (64%) Graft Material (Autograft) Hamstring 36/71 (51%) 29/71 (41%) n.s Patella bone-tendon-bone 24/71 (34%) 30/71 (42%) Quadriceps 11/71 (15%) 12/71 (17%) Meniscus Tear Timing Meniscus tear at time of ACL-R 60/85 (71%) 75/85 (88%) p < 0.05 No meniscus tear at time of ACL-R 15/85 (29%) 10/85 (12%) Meniscus tear repaired at time of ACL-R 53/60 (88%) 70/75 (93%) n.s Recurrent or de novo tear within follow-up period 85/85 (100%) 0/85 (0%) p < 0.05 Meniscus Tear Laterality at time of ACL-R Medial 27/60 (45%) 37/70 (53%) n.s Lateral 18/60 (30%) 23/70 (33%) Bilateral 15/60 (25%) 15/70 (21%) Meniscus Tear Morphology at time of ACL-R (medial) Radial 9/42 (21%) 13/52 (25%) n.s Bucket Handle 7/42 (17%) 12/52 (23%) Oblique/Parrot Beak 2/42 (5%) 0/52 (0%) Complex 0/42 (0%) 2/52 (4%) Longitudinal 11/42 (26%) 11/52 (21%) Horizontal 1/42 (2%) 1/52 (2%) Root 1/42 (2%) 2/52 (2%) Vertical 11/42 (26%) 11/52 (21%) Meniscus Tear Morphology at time of ACL-R (lateral) Radial 11/33 (33%) 15/39 (38%) n.s Bucket Handle 2/33 (6%) 4/39 (10%) Oblique/Parrot Beak 4/33 (12%) 2/39 (5%) Complex 3/33 (9%) 3/39 (8%) Longitudinal 3/33 (9%) 1/39 (3%) Horizontal 0/33 (0%) 1/39 (3%) Root 6/33 (18%) 4/39 (10%) Vertical 4/33 (12%) 9/39 (23%) Table detailing the demographic and perioperative differences between the patients with symptomatic, operative meniscus tears during the follow-up period status-post ACL-R (Group 1) and patients without symptomatic, operative meniscus tears during the follow-up period status-post ACL-R (Group 2). n.s: not significant, p > 0.05; BMI Body mass index, F Female, M Male, ACL-R Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction All patients in Group 1 experienced symptomatic, operative meniscus tears during follow-up (85/85, 100%). Meniscus tears identified during follow-up (Group 1) consisted of 27/85 (32%) recurrent tears, 48/85 (56%) de novo tears, and 10/85 (12%) concomitant existence of both a recurrent and a de novo tear (Table 2).Table 2 Meniscus tears during follow-up period Group 1 Operative tear within follow-up period Recurrent tear 27/85 (32%) De Novo tear 48/85 (56%) Both 10/85 (12%) Table detailing the type (de novo versus recurrent) of meniscus tears incurred during the follow-up period status-post ACL-R (Group 1). Recurrent tears were of the same laterality and of similar morphology to tears repaired at index ACL-R. De novo tears were of different laterality or different morphology to tears repaired at index ACL-R Graft type was similar between groups (Group 1: allograft: 14/85 (16%), autograft: 71/85 (84%) versus Group 2: allograft: 14/85 (16%), autograft: 71/85 (84%), n.s). Graft material used in patients treated with both allograft and autograft was similar between groups (Table 1). Femoral tunnel position Group 1 patients had average femoral tunnel position (a/t) of 32.0% (± 10.2) and average femoral tunnel position (b/h) of 32.7% (± 10.7). In contrast, Group 2 had average femoral tunnel position (a/t) of 29.3% (± 7.3) and average femoral tunnel position (b/h) was 35.1% (± 28.3) (Fig. 3). The average (a/t) ratio for femoral tunnel position for Group 2 was significantly closer to Bernard et al.’s recommendation (p < 0.05). This indicates that Group 2 ACL femoral tunnels were, on average, more anatomic with respect to total sagittal diameter of the lateral femoral condyle.Fig. 3 Illustration depicting the average femoral tunnel positions of Group 1 compared to Group 2 Tibial tunnel position Group 1 patients had average tibial tunnel position of 41.5% (± 5.3) and Group 2 had average tibial tunnel position of 41.6% (± 5.7) (n.s). Discussion Relatively more anterior femoral tunnel placement in ACL-R is associated with increased incidence of meniscal tears during postoperative follow-up. In contrast, patients without meniscus tears identified during follow-up, had average (a/t) ratio for femoral tunnel position that was more posterior and significantly closer to Bernard et al.’s recommendations compared to patients who experienced operative meniscus tears during follow-up. This is particularly striking given that the group of patients who did not experience a meniscus tear during follow-up had a significantly higher burden of meniscus tears identified at index ACL-R compared to patients who did experience a postoperative meniscus tear. The ACL femoral tunnel in patients without meniscus tears identified after their index ACL-R was closer to Bernard et al.’s recommendations with respect to the total sagittal diameter of the lateral femoral condyle compared to patients who experienced an operative meniscus tear after their index ACL-R. Prior studies have emphasized the importance of anatomic femoral tunnel positioning in ACL-R in terms of restoring native knee kinematics and minimizing risk of both post-traumatic osteoarthritis (OA), ACL-R failure, and chondral and meniscus injuries [1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 20]. In light of this, it is possible that patients who experienced a meniscus tear after their index ACL-R may have experienced increased rotatory knee instability secondary to a statistically significantly more vertical graft, which may have increased risk for postoperative meniscus tear. In contrast, however, the tibial tunnel position did not differ between patients with meniscus tears versus those without meniscus tears identified after their index ACL-R. This is contrary to a recent work that noted a significant association between more anterior placement of the tibial tunnel and increased anterior knee stability [4]. Further, prospective studies are warranted to evaluate this discrepancy in more detail. The findings of this study suggest a higher risk of subsequent meniscus tears when the femoral tunnel is placed more anterior and superior to the anatomical location. Patients with meniscus tears identified during follow-up were shown to have statistically significant differences in their tunnel position in the (a/t) dimension. It is well-established that ACL rupture is a general risk factor for early development of OA and that ACL-R does not eradicate this risk [2, 20]. However, Rothrauff et al. demonstrate that anatomic ACL-R was associated with less development of posttraumatic radiographic OA when compared to non-anatomic ACL-R at long term follow up [20]. The data in our study support that non-anatomic ACL-R femoral position contributes to post-operative meniscus tears thereby potentially increasing the risk of the development of posttraumatic OA. However, it is worth noting that the difference in absolute sagittal position of the femoral tunnel was only 3% and was measured with radiographs rather than CT in patients with versus those without postoperative meniscus tears. Due to the retrospective nature of this work, it is difficult to speculate on whether or not this finding has clinical significance. CT scans are not routinely obtained postoperatively, which adds further limitations to this retrospective study. While this difference is small, it does highlight the important of precise tunnel position in order to potentially improve postoperative outcomes. Femoral tunnel position is a known risk factor for failure of ACL-R, and has been previously cited as a cause in up to 80% of ACL-R failures [17]. Anatomic ACL-R has been described as the functional restoration of the ACL to its native dimensions, collagen orientation, and insertion sites [23]. The findings from the present study are largely in support of these previous data and demonstrate a significant inverse relationship between increasing relative anatomic restoration of the ACL femoral tunnel position with respect to the sagittal diameter of the lateral femoral condyle, and the presence of postoperative meniscus tear. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size and relatively short postoperative follow-up. These factors were largely due to the matched cohort study design and the retrospective nature of this study, which also itself introduces bias. Future work to further examine the effect of femoral tunnel placement during ACL-R on postoperative meniscus tear would benefit from a prospective design. This would facilitate larger sample size with longer follow-up compared to standard postoperative care after ACL-R. Additionally, prospective work may include the use of computed tomography (CT) for tunnel measurements, rather than X-ray, which may allow for increased accuracy of tunnel measurement and increased ICC. Prospective work may also include the use of quantitative knee stability testing including KT-1000, as well as physical exam stability testing such as Lachman and pivot-shift testing in order to correlate postoperative meniscus tears with both rotatory knee instability as well as tunnel position. Conclusion This study concludes that there is a relationship between the relative restoration of native anatomy during femoral tunnel creation and the presence of operative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Based on the data from this study, a more anterior femoral tunnel placement may increase the risk of operative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Therefore, anatomic femoral tunnel position is important both to preserve the reconstructed ACL and also potentially to decrease the risk of postoperative meniscus tears. Further, likely prospective, work is needed in order to both quantitatively assess rotatory knee instability and more accurately assess tunnel position via CT in patients with postoperative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Abbreviations ACL Anterior cruciate ligament ACL-R Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction IRB Institutional Review Board MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging AP Anteroposterior BMI Body mass index ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient PA Posteroanterior PD Proximal–distal OA Osteoarthritis CT Computed tomography M Male F Female n.s. Not significant Acknowledgements Not applicable. Authors’ contributions JDH made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, the interpretation of data, and substantively revised the work. ASG performed acquisition, and analysis of data and interpretation of data, JFD performed acquisition, and analysis of data, interpretation of data, drafted the work and substantively revised it. BTR performed acquisition and analysis of data, and interpretation of data. DD substantively revised the work. VM made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. BPL made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The data that support the findings of this study are available from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: IRB approval (STUDY1903019) was obtained for this retrospective chart review involving human subjects. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ==== Refs References 1. Abebe ES Utturkar GM Taylor DC Spritzer CE Kim JP Moorman CT 3rd The effects of femoral graft placement on in vivo knee kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction J Biomech 2011 44 924 929 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.11.028 21227425 2. Ajuied A Wong F Smith C Norris M Earnshaw P Back D Anterior cruciate ligament injury and radiologic progression of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Sports Med 2014 42 2242 2252 10.1177/0363546513508376 24214929 3. Bernard M Hertel P Hornung H Cierpinski T Femoral insertion of the ACL. Radiographic quadrant method Am J Knee Surg 1997 10 14 21 9051173 4. Büyükdoğan K Laidlaw MS Fox MA Kew ME Miller MD Effect of Tibial Tunnel Placement Using the Lateral Meniscus as a Landmark on Clinical Outcomes of Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am J Sports Med 2021 49 1451 1459 10.1177/0363546521999672 33830836 5. Byrne KJ Hughes JD Gibbs C Vaswani R Meredith SJ Popchak A Non-anatomic tunnel position increases the risk of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022 30 1388 1395 10.1007/s00167-021-06607-7 33983487 6. Cameron M Buchgraber A Passler H Vogt M Thonar E Fu F The natural history of the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Changes in synovial fluid cytokine and keratan sulfate concentrations Am J Sports Med 1997 25 751 754 10.1177/036354659702500605 9397261 7. Chalmers PN Mall NA Moric M Sherman SL Paletta GP Cole BJ Does ACL reconstruction alter natural history?: A systematic literature review of long-term outcomes J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014 96 292 300 10.2106/JBJS.L.01713 24553885 8. Chen JL Allen CR Stephens TE Haas AK Huston LJ Wright RW Differences in mechanisms of failure, intraoperative findings, and surgical characteristics between single-and multiple-revision ACL reconstructions: a MARS cohort study Am J Sports Med 2013 41 1571 1578 10.1177/0363546513487980 23698386 9. Davis BR Chen J Inacio MCS Love R Prentice HA Maletis GB The Incidence of Subsequent Meniscal Surgery Is Higher in the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knee Than in the Contralateral Knee Am J Sports Med 2017 45 3216 3222 10.1177/0363546517721685 28846442 10. Diamantopoulos AP Lorbach O Paessler HH Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results in 107 patients Am J Sports Med 2008 36 851 860 10.1177/0363546507312381 18272793 11. Dunn WR Lyman S Lincoln AE Amoroso PJ Wickiewicz T Marx RG The effect of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the risk of knee reinjury Am J Sports Med 2004 32 1906 1914 10.1177/0363546504265006 15572320 12. Fu FH van Eck CF Tashman S Irrgang JJ Moreland MS Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a changing paradigm Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015 23 640 648 10.1007/s00167-014-3209-9 25086574 13. Hughes JD Gibbs CM Almast A Atte A Sansone M Karlsson J More anatomic tunnel placement for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by surgeons with high volume compared to low volume Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022 30 2014 2019 10.1007/s00167-022-06875-x 35092445 14. Kamath GV Redfern JC Greis PE Burks RT Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Am J Sports Med 2011 39 199 217 10.1177/0363546510370929 20709943 15. Kondo E Merican AM Yasuda K Amis AA Biomechanical comparison of anatomic double-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and nonanatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions Am J Sports Med 2011 39 279 288 10.1177/0363546510392350 21239692 16. Middleton KK Hamilton T Irrgang JJ Karlsson J Harner CD Fu FH Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction: a global perspective. Part 1 Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014 22 1467 1482 10.1007/s00167-014-2846-3 24497054 17 Morgan JA Dahm D Levy B Stuart MJ Group MS Femoral tunnel malposition in ACL revision reconstruction J Knee Surg 2012 25 361 368 10.1055/s-0031-1299662 23150344 18. Pfeiffer TR Burnham JM Hughes JD Kanakamedala AC Herbst E Popchak A An increased lateral femoral condyle ratio is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament injury J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018 100 857 864 10.2106/JBJS.17.01011 29762281 19. Rochcongar G Cucurulo T Ameline T Potel JF Dalmay F Pujol N Meniscal survival rate after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015 101 S323 326 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.09.005 26602252 20. Rothrauff BB Jorge A de Sa D Kay J Fu FH Musahl V Anatomic ACL reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020 28 1072 1084 10.1007/s00167-019-05665-2 31471726 21. Schützenberger S Grabner S Schallmayer D Kontic D Keller F Fialka C The risk of graft impingement still exists in modern ACL surgery and correlates with degenerative MRI signal changes Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021 29 2880 2888 10.1007/s00167-020-06300-1 33009942 22. Stäubli HU Rauschning W Tibial attachment area of the anterior cruciate ligament in the extended knee position. Anatomy and cryosections in vitro complemented by magnetic resonance arthrography in vivo Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1994 2 138 146 10.1007/BF01467915 7584195 23. van Eck CF Gravare-Silbernagel K Samuelsson K Musahl V van Dijk CN Karlsson J Evidence to support the interpretation and use of the Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Checklist J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013 95 e153 10.2106/JBJS.L.01437 24132368