Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rotational laxity after anatomical ACL reconstruction measured by 3-D motion analysis: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the ability of three different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques to normalize rotational knee stability 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Two of these techniques are so-called anatomic techniques.

Methods

Three different ACL reconstruction techniques were tested for their ability to normalize rotational knee stability in a prospective randomized study. Forty-seven ACL-deficient (ACLD) patients were randomized to transtibial single-bundle (SB), anatomic SB, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Three-dimensional motion analysis was performed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up to evaluate tibial rotation and rotational stiffness. Motion data were captured using an eight-camera motion analysis system. Tibial rotation was determined during walking, running, and a pivoting task. Other outcome parameters were KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and the subjective outcome scores KOOS and IKDC.

Results

Three-dimensional motion analysis demonstrated that the tibial internal rotation and the rotational stiffness did not differ between the ACL reconstruction techniques during walking, running, and pivoting at 1-year follow-up. Objective knee stability and subjective outcome scores did not differ between the reconstruction groups.

Conclusion

No significant difference in rotational stability walking, running, and pivoting was seen between anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques at 1-year follow-up.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic study, Level I.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aglietti P, Giron F, Losco M, Cuomo P, Ciardullo A, Mondanelli N (2010) Comparison between single-and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 38:25–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andriacchi TP, Dyrby CO (2005) Interactions between kinematics and loading during walking for the normal and ACL deficient knee. J Biomech 38:293–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Branch TP, Browne JE, Campbell JD, Siebold R, Freedberg HI, Arendt EA, Lavoie F, Neyret P, Jacobs CA (2010) Rotational laxity greater in patients with contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury than healthy volunteers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1379–1384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chouliaras V, Ristanis S, Moraiti C, Stergiou N, Georgoulis AD (2007) Effectiveness of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with quadrupled hamstrings and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts: an in vivo study comparing tibial internal-external rotation. Am J Sports Med 35:189–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chouliaras V, Ristanis S, Moraiti C, Tzimas V, Stergiou N, Georgoulis AD (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a quadrupled hamstrings tendon autograft does not restore tibial rotation to normative levels during landing from a jump and subsequent pivoting. J Sports Med Phys Fit 49:64–70

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Claes S, Neven E, Callewaert B, Desloovere K, Bellemans J (2011) Tibial rotation in single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a kinematic 3-D in vivo analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(Suppl 1):S115–S121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Debandi A, Maeyama A, Hoshino Y, Asai S, Goto B, Smolinski P, Fu FH (2013) The effect of tunnel placement on rotational stability after ACL reconstruction: evaluation with use of triaxial accelerometry in a porcine model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:589–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS (2010) A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med 363:331–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Georgoulis AD, Ristanis S, Chouliaras V, Moraiti C, Stergiou N (2007) Tibial rotation is not restored after ACL reconstruction with a hamstring graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:89–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grood ES, Suntay WJ (1983) A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng 105:136–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hemmerich A, van der Merwe W, Batterham M, Vaughan CL (2011) Knee rotational laxity in a randomized comparison of single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 39:48–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jarvela T (2007) Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomize clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:500–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ (2004) Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 32:629–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lane CG, Warren R, Pearle AD (2008) The pivot shift. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:679–688

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee S, Kim H, Jang J, Seong SC, Lee MC (2012) Comparison of anterior and rotatory laxity using navigation between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction: prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:752–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lopomo N, Signorelli C, Bonanzinga T, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Visani A, Zaffagnini S (2012) Quantitative assessment of pivot-shift using inertial sensors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:713–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reinschmidt C, van den Bogert AJ, Nigg BM, Lundberg A, Murphy N (1997) Effect of skin movement on the analysis of skeletal knee joint motion during running. J Biomech 30:729–732

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ristanis S, Giakas G, Papageorgiou CD, Moraiti T, Stergiou N, Georgoulis AD (2003) The effects of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on tibial rotation during pivoting after descending stairs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:360–365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ristanis S, Stergiou N, Patras K, Tsepis E, Moraiti C, Georgoulis AD (2006) Follow-up evaluation 2 years after ACL reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft shows that excessive tibial rotation persists. Clin J Sport Med 16:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ristanis S, Stergiou N, Patras K, Vasiliadis HS, Giakas G, Georgoulis AD (2005) Excessive tibial rotation during high-demand activities is not restored by anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 21:1323–1329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sakane M, Fox RJ, Woo SL, Livesay GA, Li G, Fu FH (1997) In situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament and its bundles in response to anterior tibial loads. J Orthop Res 15:285–293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Siebold R (2011) The concept of complete footprint restoration with guidelines for single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:699–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Siebold R, Dehler C, Ellert T (2008) Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 24:137–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tiamklang T, Sumanont S, Foocharoen T, Laopaiboon M (2012) Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD008413

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsarouhas A, Iosifidis M, Kotzamitelos D, Spyropoulos G, Tsatalas T, Giakas G (2010) Three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic analysis of knee rotational stability after single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 26:885–893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tsarouhas A, Iosifidis M, Spyropoulos G, Kotzamitelos D, Tsatalas T, Giakas G (2011) Tibial rotation under combined in vivo loading after single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 27:1654–1662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. van Eck CF, Kopf S, Irrgang JJ, Blankevoort L, Bhandari M, Fu FH, Poolman RW (2012) Single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis–does anatomy matter? Arthroscopy 28:405–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang H, Fleischli JE, Zheng NN (2013) Transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: outcomes of knee joint kinematics during walking. Am J Sports Med 41:1847–1856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yagi M, Wong EK, Kanamori A, Debski RE, Fu FH, Woo SL (2002) Biomechanical analysis of an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 30:660–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yasuda K, Tanabe Y, Kondo E, Kitamura N, Tohyama H (2010) Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 26:S21–S34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Signorelli C, Lopomo N, Grassi A, Bonanzinga T, Nitri M, Marcacci M (2014) Anatomic and nonanatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vivo kinematic analysis. Am J Sports Med 42:708–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhu Y, Tang RK, Zhao P, Zhu SS, Li YG, Li JB (2013) Double-bundle reconstruction results in superior clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1085–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Sportstrauma, Department of Orthopedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Marie Bagger Bohn & Martin Lind

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Kjeld Søballe

  3. Department of Public Health, Section of Sports Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Henrik Sørensen

  4. Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital and Centre of Research in Rehabilitation, Institute of Clinical Medicine and Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Mette Krintel Petersen

Authors
  1. Marie Bagger Bohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henrik Sørensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mette Krintel Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kjeld Søballe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Lind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Lind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bohn, M.B., Sørensen, H., Petersen, M.K. et al. Rotational laxity after anatomical ACL reconstruction measured by 3-D motion analysis: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23, 3473–3481 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3156-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3156-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation