Comparison of tunnel placements and clinical results of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction before and after starting the use of double-bundle technique
- 545 Downloads
To investigate whether the locations of the grafts in single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have changed to more anatomical as the double-bundle (DB) method has become more familiar.
Operation using anteromedial (not transtibial) portal and freehand technique [Group A (N = 25) in 2003, Group B (N = 25) in 2007]. The evaluation methods preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up (two blinded examiners): clinical examination, stability measurement (KT-1000 arthrometer), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the Lysholm knee scores. A musculoskeletal radiologist made tunnel measurements from the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
The average tunnel placement in the femoral side: from Blumensaat’s line 27 % (Group A) and 26 % (Group B), from the posterior edge of the femur 32 % (Group A) and 29 % (Group B). The average tunnel placement in the tibial side: from the anterior edge 45 % (Group A) and 45 % (Group B), from the lateral side 57 % (Group A) and 54 % (Group B) (P = 0.024). Graft failures ending up to revision ACL surgery: 4 (Group A) and 0 (Group B) (P = 0.045). Operation time reduced 19 min (P = 0.001).
Tunnel placement at the femoral side was already very low (anatomical) in patients operated in 2003. No significant difference was found when comparing to the patients operated in 2007. There were significantly more graft failures in the Group A, suggesting that the use of the DB method in ACL surgery in 2007 may have also improved the technique and results of the SB ACL reconstruction.
Level of evidence
Prospective comparative study, Level II.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Graft location Magnetic resonance imaging Double-bundle method Anatomical single-bundle method
- 5.Bonsell S (2000) Financial analysis of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at Baylor University Medical Center. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 13:327–330Google Scholar
- 6.Bowers AL, Bedi A, Lipman JD, Potter HG, Rodeo SA, Pearle AD, Warren RF, Altchek DW (2011) Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament tunnel position and graft obliquity with transtibial and anteromedial portal femoral tunnel reaming techniques using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopy 27:1511–1522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Kawakami Y, Hiranaka T, Matsumoto T, Hida Y, Fukui T, Uemoto H, Doita M, Tsuji M, Kurosaka M, Kuroda R (2011) The accuracy of bone tunnel position using fluoroscopic-based navigation system in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (Epub Oct 22)Google Scholar
- 19.Kijowski R, Davis KW, Woods MA, Lindstrom MJ, De Smet AA, Gold GE, Busse RF (2009) Knee joint: comprehensive assessment with 3D isotropic resolution fast spin-echo MR imaging–diagnostic performance compared with that of conventional MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 252:486–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Yamazaki J, Muneta T, Koga H, Sekiya I, Ju YJ, Morito T, Yagishita K (2011) Radiographic description of femoral tunnel placement expressed as intercondylar clock time in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:418–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar