TY - JOUR
T1 - Microstructural and Mechanical Properties of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee
AU - Patel, Ronak M.
AU - Castile, Ryan M.
AU - Jenkins, Matthew J.
AU - Lake, Spencer P.
AU - Brophy, Robert H.
N1 - Funding Information:
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was supported in part by a grant from the Mid-America Orthopaedic Association. R.H.B. has received consulting fees from Sanofi-Aventis and education payments from Arthrex and Elite Orthopedics. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s).
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Background: The variable anatomy and controversy of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) reflect the complex relationship among the anterolateral knee structures. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to quantify the microstructural and mechanical properties of the ALL as compared with the anterolateral capsule (ALC) and lateral collateral ligament (LCL). The primary hypotheses were that (1) there is no difference in these properties between the ALL and ALC and (2) the LCL has significantly different properties from the ALL and ALC. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: The LCL, ALL, and ALC were harvested from 25 cadaveric knees. Mechanical testing and microstructural analyses were performed using quantitative polarized light imaging. The average degree of linear polarization (AVG DoLP; mean strength of collagen alignment) and standard deviation of the angle of polarization (STD AoP; degree of variation in collagen angle orientation) were calculated. Results: Linear region moduli were not different between the ALC and ALL (3.75 vs 3.66 MPa, respectively; P >.99). AVG DoLP values were not different between the ALC and ALL in the linear region (0.10 vs 0.10; P >.99). Similarly, STD AoP values were not different between the ALC and ALL (24.2 vs 21.7; P >.99). The LCL had larger modulus, larger AVG DoLP, and smaller STD AoP values than the ALL and ALC. Of 25 knee specimens, 3 were observed to have a distinct ALL, which exhibited larger modulus, larger AVG DoLP, and smaller STD AoP values as compared with nondistinct ALL samples. Conclusion: There were no differences in the mechanical and microstructural properties between the ALL and ALC. The ALC and ALL exhibited comparably weak and disperse collagen alignment. However, when a distinct ALL was present, the properties were suggestive of a ligamentous structure. Clinical Relevance: The properties of the ALL are similar to those of a ligament only when a distinct ALL is present, but otherwise, for the majority of specimens, ALL properties are closer to those of the capsule. Variability in the ligamentous structure of the ALL suggests that it may be more important in some patients than others and reconstruction may be considered in selective patients. Further study is needed to better understand its selective role and optimal indications for reconstruction.
AB - Background: The variable anatomy and controversy of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) reflect the complex relationship among the anterolateral knee structures. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to quantify the microstructural and mechanical properties of the ALL as compared with the anterolateral capsule (ALC) and lateral collateral ligament (LCL). The primary hypotheses were that (1) there is no difference in these properties between the ALL and ALC and (2) the LCL has significantly different properties from the ALL and ALC. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: The LCL, ALL, and ALC were harvested from 25 cadaveric knees. Mechanical testing and microstructural analyses were performed using quantitative polarized light imaging. The average degree of linear polarization (AVG DoLP; mean strength of collagen alignment) and standard deviation of the angle of polarization (STD AoP; degree of variation in collagen angle orientation) were calculated. Results: Linear region moduli were not different between the ALC and ALL (3.75 vs 3.66 MPa, respectively; P >.99). AVG DoLP values were not different between the ALC and ALL in the linear region (0.10 vs 0.10; P >.99). Similarly, STD AoP values were not different between the ALC and ALL (24.2 vs 21.7; P >.99). The LCL had larger modulus, larger AVG DoLP, and smaller STD AoP values than the ALL and ALC. Of 25 knee specimens, 3 were observed to have a distinct ALL, which exhibited larger modulus, larger AVG DoLP, and smaller STD AoP values as compared with nondistinct ALL samples. Conclusion: There were no differences in the mechanical and microstructural properties between the ALL and ALC. The ALC and ALL exhibited comparably weak and disperse collagen alignment. However, when a distinct ALL was present, the properties were suggestive of a ligamentous structure. Clinical Relevance: The properties of the ALL are similar to those of a ligament only when a distinct ALL is present, but otherwise, for the majority of specimens, ALL properties are closer to those of the capsule. Variability in the ligamentous structure of the ALL suggests that it may be more important in some patients than others and reconstruction may be considered in selective patients. Further study is needed to better understand its selective role and optimal indications for reconstruction.
KW - anterolateral capsule
KW - anterolateral ligament
KW - biomechanical properties
KW - rotational instability
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098567297&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0363546520974381
DO - 10.1177/0363546520974381
M3 - Article
C2 - 33381993
AN - SCOPUS:85098567297
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 49
SP - 172
EP - 182
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 1
ER -