Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 475, Issue 10, pp 2503–2512 | Cite as

Risk of Revision Was Not Reduced by a Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction Technique: Results From the Scandinavian Registers

  • Cathrine Aga
  • Jüri-Tomas Kartus
  • Martin Lind
  • Stein Håkon Låstad Lygre
  • Lars-Petter Granan
  • Lars Engebretsen
Symposium: Improving Care for Patients With ACL Injuries: A Team Approach

Abstract

Background

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has demonstrated improved biomechanical properties and moderately better objective outcomes compared with single-bundle reconstructions. This could make an impact on the rerupture rate and reduce the risk of revisions in patients undergoing double-bundle ACL reconstruction compared with patients reconstructed with a traditional single-bundle technique. The National Knee Ligament Registers in Scandinavia provide information that can be used to evaluate the revision outcome after ACL reconstructions.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of the study were (1) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstructions, reconstructed with autologous hamstring tendon grafts; (2) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle hamstring tendon and single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts; and (3) to compare the hazard ratios for the same two research questions after Cox regression analysis was performed.

Methods

Data collection of primary ACL reconstructions from the National Knee Ligament Registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from July 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, was retrospectively analyzed. A total of 60,775 patients were included in the study; 994 patients were reconstructed with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, 51,991 with single-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, and 7790 with single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. The double-bundle ACL-reconstructed patients were compared with the two other groups. The risk of revision for each research question was detected by the risk ratio, hazard ratio, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival at 1, 2, and 5 years for the three different groups. Furthermore, a Cox proportional hazard regression model was applied and the hazard ratios were adjusted for country, age, sex, meniscal or chondral injury, and utilized fixation devices on the femoral and tibial sides.

Results

There were no differences in the crude risk of revision between the patients undergoing the double-bundle technique and the two other groups. A total of 3.7% patients were revised in the double-bundle group (37 of 994 patients) versus 3.8% in the single-bundle hamstring tendon group (1952 of 51,991; risk ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73–1.39; p = 0.96), and 2.8% of the patients were revised in the bone-patellar tendon-bone group (219 of the 7790 bone-patellar tendon-bone patients; risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54–1.06; p = 0.11). Cox regression analysis with adjustment for country, age, sex, menisci or cartilage injury, and utilized fixation device on the femoral and tibial sides, did not reveal any further difference in the risk of revision between the single-bundle hamstring tendon and double-bundle hamstring tendon groups (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.85–1.62; p = 0.33), but the adjusted hazard ratio showed a lower risk of revision in the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group compared with the double-bundle group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43–0.90; p = 0.01). Comparisons of the graft revision rates reported separately for each country revealed that double-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions in Sweden had a lower hazard ratio compared with the single-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions (hazard ratio, 1.00 versus 1.89; 95% CI, 1.09–3.29; p = 0.02). Survival at 5 years after index surgery was 96.0% for the double-bundle group, 95.4% for the single-bundle hamstring tendon group, and 97.0% for the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group.

Conclusions

Based on the data from all three national registers, the risk of revision was not influenced by the reconstruction technique in terms of using single- or double-bundle hamstring tendons, although national differences in survival existed. Using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts lowered the risk of revision compared with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts. These findings should be considered when deciding what reconstruction technique to use in ACL-deficient knees. Future studies identifying the reasons for graft rerupture in single- and double-bundle reconstructions would be of interest to understand the findings of the present study.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahlden M, Samuelsson K, Sernert N, Forssblad M, Karlsson J, Kartus J. The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register: a report on baseline variables and outcomes of surgery for almost 18,000 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2230–2235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andernord D, Bjornsson H, Petzold M, Eriksson BI, Forssblad M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K. Surgical predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register on 13,102 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:1574–1582.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andernord D, Desai N, Bjornsson H, Ylander M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K. Patient predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 16,930 patients with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:121–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA. Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:596–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asagumo H, Kimura M, Kobayashi Y, Taki M, Takagishi K. Anatomic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using double-bundle hamstring tendons: surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and complications. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:602–609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjornsson H, Andernord D, Desai N, Norrby O, Forssblad M, Petzold M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K. No difference in revision rates between single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative study of 16,791 patients from the Swedish national knee ligament register. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:659–664.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjornsson H, Desai N, Musahl V, Alentorn-Geli E, Bhandari M, Fu F, Samuelsson K. Is double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to single-bundle? A comprehensive systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:696–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brand J Jr, Weiler A, Caborn DN, Brown CH Jr, Johnson DL. Graft fixation in cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:761–774.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cha PS, Brucker PU, West RV, Zelle BA, Yagi M, Kurosaka M, Fu FH. Arthroscopic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an anatomic approach. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Desai N, Bjornsson H, Musahl V, Bhandari M, Petzold M, Fu FH, Samuelsson K. Anatomic single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:1009–1023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fauno P, Kaalund S. Tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is influenced by the type of graft fixation used: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1337–1341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, Lind M, Forssblad M, Albrektsen G, Drogset JO. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2319–2328.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Granan LP, Bahr R, Steindal K, Furnes O, Engebretsen L. Development of a national cruciate ligament surgery registry: the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:308–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Granan LP, Forssblad M, Lind M, Engebretsen L. The Scandinavian ACL registries 2004-2007: baseline epidemiology. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:563–567.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grindem H, Granan LP, Risberg MA, Engebretsen L, Snyder-Mackler L, Eitzen I. How does a combined preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation programme influence the outcome of ACL reconstruction 2 years after surgery? A comparison between patients in the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:385–389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hussein M, van Eck CF, Cretnik A, Dinevski D, Fu FH. 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. 2012;40:512–520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knottnerus A, Tugwell P. STROBE–a checklist to Strengthen the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehmann AK, Osada N, Zantop T, Raschke MJ, Petersen W. Femoral bridge stability in double-bundle ACL reconstruction: impact of bridge width and different fixation techniques on the structural properties of the graft/femur complex. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:1127–1132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB. Incidence and outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish registry for knee ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:1551–1557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mascarenhas R, Cvetanovich GL, Sayegh ET, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph C, Bach BR Jr. Does double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improve postoperative knee stability compared with single-bundle techniques? A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:1185–1196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mascarenhas R, Saltzman BM, Sayegh ET, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph C, Bach BR Jr. Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:561–568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Middleton KK, Muller B, Araujo PH, Fujimaki Y, Rabuck SJ, Irrgang JJ, Tashman S, Fu FH. Is the native ACL insertion site ‘completely restored’ using an individualized approach to single-bundle ACL-R? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:2145–2150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohtadi N, Chan D, Barber R, Paolucci EO. Reruptures, reinjuries, and revisions at a minimum 2-year follow-up: a randomized clinical trial comparing 3 graft types for ACL reconstruction. Clin J Sports Med. 2016;26:96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen JE, Kjellsen AB, Engebretsen L, Hole RM, Fevang JM. Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004–2012. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:285–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petersen W, Zantop T. Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament with regard to its two bundles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;454:35–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rahr-Wagner L, Lind M. The Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:531–535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind M. Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: results from the Danish Registry of Knee Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:278–284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind MC. Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:98–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siebold R, Dehler C, Ellert T. Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:137–145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Siebold R, Schuhmacher P. Restoration of the tibial ACL footprint area and geometry using the Modified Insertion Site Table. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:1845–1849.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Suomalainen P, Kannus P, Jarvela T. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a review of literature. Int Orthop. 2013;37:227–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Svantesson E, Sundemo D, Hamrin Senorski E, Alentorn-Geli E, Musahl V, Fu FH, Desai N, Stalman A, Samuelsson K. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior to single-bundle reconstruction in terms of revision frequency: a study of 22,460 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Nov 23. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tiamklang T, Sumanont S, Foocharoen T, Laopaiboon M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008413.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yagi M, Wong EK, Kanamori A, Debski RE, Fu FH, Woo SL. Biomechanical analysis of an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:660–666.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ytterstad K, Granan LP, Ytterstad B, Steindal K, Fjeldsgaard KA, Furnes O, Engebretsen L. Registration rate in the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register: large-volume hospitals perform better. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:174–178.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zantop T, Herbort M, Raschke MJ, Fu FH, Petersen W. The role of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament in anterior tibial translation and internal rotation. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:223–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentMartina Hansens HospitalBærumNorway
  2. 2.Oslo Sports Trauma Research CenterOsloNorway
  3. 3.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  4. 4.Orthopaedic DepartmentMartina Hansens HospitalSandvikaNorway
  5. 5.Orthopaedic DepartmentNU-Hospital Group/Gothenburg UniversityTrollhättanSweden
  6. 6.Division of Sportstraumatology, Department of OrthopedicsAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  7. 7.The Norwegian Arthroplasty RegisterHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  8. 8.Department of Occupational MedicineHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  9. 9.Department of Pain Management and ResearchOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  10. 10.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryOslo Univerity HospitalOsloNorway
  11. 11.International Olympic CommitteeLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations