Rediscover the
natural ACL anatomy
The Medacta M-ARS ACL Instrument Set has been designed to facilitate the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
procedure using the Anatomic Ribbon Technique.
Medacta M-ARS system allows the reconstruction of the ACL insertion site mimicking the native ACL footprint by twisting the ribbon shaped transplant before the graft is pulled into the femoral tunnel. The graft is fixed by means of Medacta Tibial Pull Suture Plate and Medacta Extracortical Femoral Button implants.
Used to over drill the k-wires
Ø4.5 mm
.gif)
Ø2.4 mm, L 380 mm
Used to dilate the three overlapping holes performed with the femoral aimer
Sizes Available: Small – Medium - Large
Used to create three overlapping holes in the femoral bone in correspondence with the ACL femoral insertion
It enables easy removal of the dilators in case of significant friction between the dilators tip and bone
Self-locking mechanism to be coupled with the femoral or the tibial dilators
Measuring graft sizes:
Open and closed configurations
Used to perform the tibial tunnel C-shaped hole
L 230 mm and L 260 mm
The special k-wire features a diametric reduction in its proximal portion in order to be easily introduced into the tibial aimer bullet (from the tip of the drill guide) preventing posterior slippage from the bullet
Used to correctly orientate the tibial dilator
Rounded edges to avoid condyle damaging
L 203 mm
Used to dilate the C-Shaped holes performed in the tibia
Sizes Available: Small – Medium – Large
Correct orientation thanks to two lateral holes for Ø2 mm guiding pin
Designed to create a tunnel in the tibial bone in correspondence with the ACL tibial insertion site
Creates three overlapping holes with a C-shaped pattern
Left and Right configurations
Small and Medium
Ensures the appropriate extracortical fixation of the PSP in correspondence with the tibial tunnel
Tip design that mimics the inner contour of the PSP implant
[1] Bourne RB et al. “Patients satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?” Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010.
[2] Tippett SR et al. “Collecting Data with Palm Technology: Comparing Preoperative Expectations and Postoperative Satisfaction in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty “ J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010.
[3] Behrend et al.” The “Forgotten Joint” as the Ultimate Goal in Joint Arthroplasty”, The Journal of Arthroplasty vol 27, n 3, 2012.
[4] Blaha D “The Rationale for a Total Knee Implant That Confers Anteroposterior Stability Throughout Range of Motion” The Journal of Arthroplasty Vol. 19 No. 4 Suppl. 1 2004.
[5] Pritchett JW “Patients Prefer A Bicruciate-Retaining or the Medial Pivot Total Knee Prosthesis”, The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2011.
[6] Freeman MAR, Pinskerova V “The movement of the normal tibio-femoral joint”, J Biomech. 2005 Feb;38(2):197-208.
[7] Hossain F et al. “Knee arthroplasty with a medially conforming ball-and-socket tibiofemoral articulation provides better function”, Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan;469(1):55-63.
[8] Jansson V et al, “Kinematics and contact patterns before and after TKA: an in vitro comparison of GMK PS vs. GMK Sphere”, Podium presentation at DKOU 2014, October 28-31 2014.
[9] Meijerink HJ et al, “The trochlea is medialized by total knee arthroplasty. An intraoperative assessment in 61 patients”. Acta Orthopaedica, 2007.
[10] Morra EA, Greenwald AS “Simulated kinematic performance of The GMK-Sphere Total Knee Design During A Stand to Squat Activity”, Study Report 2013.
[11] Banks S et al, “In Vivo Kinematics of a Medially Conforming & Rotationally Unconstrained TKA Design”, Podium presentation at the 27th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, Kyoto, Japan, September 25-27, 2014.
[12] Data on file: Medacta.
[13] Haider H, Kaddick C, “Wear of Mobile Bearing Knees: Is It Necessarily Less?”, Journal of ASTM International, 2012.
[14] Field R et al, “Preliminary results of GMK Sphere”. 7th M.O.R.E. International Symposium, Proceedings. Distributed with The Bone & Joint Journal, June 2014 issue.
