Comparison of outcome after anatomic double-bundle and antero-medial portal non-anatomic single-bundle reconstruction in ACL-injured patients
- 447 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with non-anatomic single-bundle reconstruction.
In a prospective consecutive series, 94 unselected patients [45 anatomic double-bundle (ADB) and 49 non-anatomic single-bundle (SB)] underwent ACL reconstruction involving hamstring tendon autograft, interference screw fixation on both the femoral and tibial side and drilling the femoral tunnel(s) through the antero-medial portal in both groups. In the ADB group, the remnants of the ACL were identified and the grafts were placed anatomically. In the SB group, traditional placement of the graft was performed in a less anatomic manner. Pre-operatively, the groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, time between injury and operation and associated injuries. One independent physiotherapist performed all the pre-operative and post-operative assessments.
The follow-up period was 26 (22–34) and 24 (23–30) months in the ADB and SB groups, respectively (p = 0.005). At follow-up, 78 % in the ADB group and 74 % in the SB group had a negative pivot-shift test (n.s.). The KT-1000 134N measurements were 2 (−5 to 10.5) and 2 (−4 to 7) mm in the ADB and SB groups, respectively (n.s.). At follow-up, the extension deficit was significantly larger in the ADB group than in the SB group (p = 0.001). The Tegner activity scale was significantly higher in the ADB group both pre-operatively and at follow-up (p = 0.03 and p = 0.004). In overall terms, both groups had improved significantly at the two-year follow-up.
In an unselected group of ACL-injured patients, anatomic double-bundle reconstruction did not result in better rotational or antero-posterior stability measurements than antero-medial portal non-anatomic single-bundle reconstruction at the two-year follow-up.
Level of evidence
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament Reconstruction Hamstrings tendon Double bundle Non-anatomic single bundle Outcome
- 6.Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Webster KE (2014) Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Br J Sports Med 48(21):1543–1552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Naud S, Fleming BC, Abate JA, Brattbakk B, Nichols CE (2011) Accelerated versus nonaccelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation evaluating knee joint laxity using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Am J Sports Med 39(12):2536–2548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Desai N, Alentorn-Geli E, van Eck CF, Musahl V, Fu FH, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K (2016) A systematic review of single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(3):862–872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Hussein M, van Eck CF, Cretnik A, Dinevski D, Fu FH (2012) Prospective randomized clinical evaluation of conventional single-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 281 cases with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 40(3):512–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Jarvela T, Moisala AS, Sihvonen R, Jarvela S, Kannus P, Jarvinen M (2008) Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation: prospective, randomized, clinical study with 2-year results. Am J Sports Med 36(2):290–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs K, Zurakowski D, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ (2002) Determinants of patient satisfaction with outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A (9):1560–1572Google Scholar
- 25.Mascarenhas R, Cvetanovich GL, Sayegh ET, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph C, Bach BR Jr (2015) Does double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improve postoperative knee stability compared with single-bundle techniques? A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 31(6):1185–1196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Smigielski R, Zdanowicz U, Drwiega M, Ciszek B, Ciszkowska-Lyson B, Siebold R (2015) Ribbon like appearance of the midsubstance fibres of the anterior cruciate ligament close to its femoral insertion site: a cadaveric study including 111 knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(11):3143–3150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Streich NA, Friedrich K, Gotterbarm T, Schmitt H (2008) Reconstruction of the ACL with a semitendinosus tendon graft: a prospective randomized single blinded comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle technique in male athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(3):232–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.The Swedish National Knee Ligament Register (2014) Swedish ACL Register: annual report 2014. http://www.artroclinic.se/info/rapport2014en.pdf
- 39.Tegner Y, Lysholm J, Lysholm M, Gillquist J (1985) Rating systems in evaluation of knee ligament injuries. ClinOrthopRelat Res 198:43–49Google Scholar