Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
There are many concerns in revising a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The main clinical problem or fear may be the fear of potential coalition of tunnels and maybe even fear of fracture, which could make the revision ACL surgery very difficult. In these cases, two-stage procedure with bone grafting at the first operation and revision ACL reconstruction at the second operation may be needed [2]. However, one-stage revision ACL reconstruction with good results is possibly to perform, too [11, 14]. Also, a double-bundle technique can be used at the revision ACL surgery for the malplaced and failed primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction [3, 10, 16]. In general, revision surgery is always technically demanding and challenging procedure that requires flexibility and a repertoire of surgical techniques, and this concerns especially revision surgery after primary double-bundle ACL reconstruction.
On the 27 prospective randomised trials comparing the clinical results of double-bundle versus single-bundle techniques, 8 trials (30%) did not find any significant differences in the clinical results between these two techniques. However, 19 trials (70%) reported significantly better results with double-bundle technique than with single-bundle technique, and no study reported any superiority of single bundle technique [7]. In general, double-bundle ACL reconstruction leads to better restoration of knee laxity and subjective outcomes than single bundle ACL reconstruction, as shown in a recent meta-analysis of 40 prospective randomised trials comparing the results of these two techniques [12]. The longest follow-up of these prospective randomised trials was in the study of Järvelä et al. [4]. This study compared double-bundle and single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring autografts and aperture fixation with 10-year follow-up. They reported that the revision rate of the double-bundle ACL reconstruction was significantly lower with double-bundle technique compared to single-bundle tehnique. Only 1 patient out of 30 patients (3.3%) underwent revision ACL surgery in the double-bundle group during the 10-year follow-up, while 10 patients out of 60 patients (16.7%) were revised in the single-bundle group during the same time period. Four other prospective randomised trials have reported fewer graft failures with the double-bundle technique compared with single-bundle techniques, too [4].
According to the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register, a total of 22,460 patients underwent an ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft during the period 2007–2014. Of these, 614 were double-bundle ACL reconstruction and 21,846 single-bundle. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction had a revision frequency of 2.0% (n = 12) and single-bundle 3.2% (n = 689). Single-bundle reconstruction had an increased risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle [13].
According to the National Knee Ligament Registers in Denmark, Norway and Sweden from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014 a total of 60,775 patients with primary ACL reconstruction were retrospectively analysed. Of these, 994 patients were reconstructed with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, 51,991 with single-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, and 7,790 with single-bundle bone patellar tendon bone grafts. A total of 3.7% 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), and 2.8% of the patients were revised in the bone patellar tendon bone group (219 of the 7790 bone patellar tendon bone patients). Based on the data from 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 [1].
In a recent retrospective review of the consecutive series of one experienced ACL surgeon during the period of 15 years, a total of 1319 patients underwent an ACL reconstructions, of which 716 were performed using double-bundle technique and aperture fixation with bioabsorbable screws. Out of these patients with double-bundle ACL reconstruction, only 4 patients underwent ACL revision surgery, because of graft failure caused by new knee injury [5]. The revision rate of the double-bundle ACL reconstruction in this retrospective consecutive series of one experienced ACL surgeon was 0.6%, which is very low.
The most common pattern of the double-bundle ACL graft re-rupture at the time of revision ACL surgery has been shown to be mid-substance anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundle rupture [15]. A revision surgery for the ruptured double-bundle ACL graft can be performed as one-stage operation using either the same tunnels than on the primary surgery or by drilling new PL tunnel [8]. One-stage revision ACL reconstruction using bone patellar tendon bone autograft after failed primary double-bundle ACL reconstruction provides almost compatible postoperative clinical outcomes and knee stability with primary ACL reconstruction using similar autograft [14]. If the femoral tunnels are malpositioned, the new femoral tunnel can be drilled between the previous two tunnels with filling the previous vertical tunnels with impacted bone graft at the same operation [11]. In this particular case, after 10 months of postoperative rehabilitation, the patient returned to professional dancing with sound bony unit and without any residual laxity.
In the experience with 4 consecutive revision cases after failed double-bundle ACL reconstruction from the total of 716 primary double-bundle ACL reconstruction during the time period of 15 years, no significant tunnel enlargement was found. So, only bigger holes were drilled to old anteromedial (AM) tunnels of the ACL, and a revision ACL reconstruction with a single-bundle technique using bone patellar tendon bone or hamstring autograft and interference screw fixation was performed [5]. One-stage revision of the double-bundle ACL could be performed, because there was no significant tunnel enlargement or tunnel communication at the revision ACL surgery. This may be do to the fact that there was no tunnel communication at the primary operation, either. Otherwise the aperture fixation with bioabsorbable screws would be very difficult or even impossible to perform. In addition, the previous magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have shown that there is less tunnel enlargement with double-bundle technique comparing to single-bundle technique at 2 years [6], and the ossification of the bioabsorbable screws and tunnels have already started at 5 years [9].
Revising a double-bundle ACL can be a demanding and challenging procedure, as a revision surgery in general usually is. The revision rate of double-bundle ACL reconstruction is quite low, from 0.6 to 3.7% [1, 4, 5, 13]. Maybe because of that, there are only few studies to describe the techniques and results of revision ACL surgery after failed primary double-bundle ACL reconstruction.
Pre-operative planning with 3D-CT imaging helps to evaluate if there is so much tunnel enlargement or tunnel communication that two-stage procedure with bone grafting at the first operation and revision ACL surgery at the second operation is needed [2]. However, one-stage revision is possible to perform, too [5, 8, 11, 14]. In these cases, the revision surgery was performed with single-bundle technique using bone patellar tendon bone autograft [5, 14], hamstring tendon autograft [5, 11], or Achilles tendon allograft [11]. If the tunnels were optimal on primary ACL reconstruction, the same AM tunnels were used by drilling the tunnels bigger than before [5]. In the case of malpositioned tunnels at the primary double-bundle ACL reconstruction, new tunnels were drilled to the anatomic position of the native ACL [8, 11]. Also, the revision ACL surgery could be performed with double-bundle technique using the both previous tunnels at the revision surgery [8].
In conclusion, the revision surgery of the failed primary double-bundle ACL reconstruction is a rare occurring according to the reported revision rates in the literature. It is a demanding procedure, which needs a careful pre-operative planning and repertoire of different surgical techniques. In the case of severe tunnel enlargement or tunnel communication two-stage procedure with bone grafting at the first operation and revision ACL reconstruction at the second operation may be needed. However, it is possible to perform as one-stage procedure with good clinical outcomes, too.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Aga C, Kartus JT, Lind M, Lygre SHL, Granan LP, Engebretsen L (2017) Risk of revision was not reduced by a double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique: results from the Scandinavian Registers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(10):2503–2512
Hofbauer M, Muller B, Murawski CD, Baraga M, van Eck CF, Fu FH (2013) Strategies for revision surgery after primary double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(9):2072–2080
Jiang C, Chen G, Chen P, Li W, Zhang H, Zhang W (2018) Double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective in rescuing failed primary reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise. Exp Ther Med 15:2074–2080
Järvelä S, Kiekara T, Suomalainen P, Järvelä T (2017) Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study with 10-year results. Am J Sports Med 45(11):2578–2585
Järvelä T (2021) Revising a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament. 19th ESSKA Congress, abstract n:o FP22-02.
Järvelä T, Moisala AS, Paakkala T, Paakkala A (2008) Tunnel enlargement after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized study. Arthroscopy 24(12):1340–1357
Järvelä T, Nurmi JT, Järvelä S (2018) Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using soft tissue interference screw fixation. Ann Joint 3:86
Kaz R, Starman JS, Fu FH (2007) Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction revision surgery. Arthroscopy 23(11):1250.e1–3
Kiekara T, Paakkala A, Suomalainen P, Huhtala H, Järvelä T (2017) Femoral and tibial tunnel diameter and bioabsorbable screw findings after double-bundle ACL reconstruction in 5-year clinical and MRI follow-up. Orthop J Sports Med 5(2):2325967116685525
Muneta T, Hara K, Ju YJ, Mochizuki T, Morito T, Yagishita K, Sekiya I (2010) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by double-bundle technique using multi-strand semitendinosus tendon. Arthroscopy 26(6):769–781
Ra HJ, Ha JK, Kim JG, Hwang DY (2017) One stage revision single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with impacted morselized bone graft following a failed double-bundle reconstruction. Indian J Orthop 51(3):343–346
Seppänen A, Suomalainen P, Huhtala H, Mäenpää H, Kiekara T, Järvelä T (2021) Double bundle ACL reconstruction leads to better restoration of knee laxity and subjective outcomes than single bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06744-z
Svantensson E, Sundemo D, Senorski EH, Alentorn-Geli E, Musahl V, Fu FH, Desai N, Stålman A, Samuelsson K (2017) Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior to single-bundle reconstruction in terms of revision frequency: a study of 22460 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(12):3884–3891
Tomihara T, Hashimoto Y, Taniuchi M, Takigami J, Han C, Shimada N (2017) One-stage revision ACL reconstruction after primary ACL double bindle reconstruction; is bone-patella tendon-bone autograft reliable? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(5):1653–1661
van Eck CF, Kropf EJ, Romanowski JR, Lesniak BP, Tranovich MJ, van Dijk CN, Fu FH (2011) ACL graft re-rupture after double-bundle reconstruction: factors that influence the intra-articular pattern of injury. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(3):340–346
Zantop T, Petersen W (2008) Double bundle revision of a malplaced single bundle vertical ACL reconstruction: ACL revision surgery using a two femoral tunnel technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(11):1287–1294
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TJ and VM did together this manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Järvelä, T., Musahl, V. Revising a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament: one- or two-stage procedure?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30, 1855–1857 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06807-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06807-1