Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rotational and translational laxity after computer-navigated single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

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

Abstract

Based on biomechanical cadaver studies, anatomic double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) was introduced to achieve better stability in the knee, particularly in respect of rotatory loads. Previously, the success of ACL reconstruction was believed to be mainly dependent on correct positioning of the graft, irrespective of the number of reconstructed bundles for which computer-assisted surgery was developed to avoid malpositioning of the tunnel. The aim of the present study is to compare rotational and translational stability after computer-navigated standard single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The authors investigated 55 consecutive patients who had undergone the single-bundle or double-bundle ACL reconstruction procedure with the use of autogenous hamstring tendon grafts and EndoButton® fixation, and the patients had been followed for a minimum period of 24 months. Intraoperative, anteroposterior and rotational laxity was measured with the computer navigation system, and compared between groups. Both surgical procedures significantly reduced anteroposterior displacement (AP) and internal rotation (IR) of the tibia compared to the pre-operative ACL-deficient knee (P < 0.05). No significant differences were registered between groups with regard to anteroposterior displacement of the tibia. A significantly greater reduction in internal rotation was noted in the double-bundle group (15.6°) compared to the single-bundle group (7.1°). The IKDC and Lysholm score were significantly higher in the double-bundle group. However, the results were excellent in both groups. The use of a computer-assisted ACL reconstruction, which is a highly accurate method of graft placement, could be useful for inexperienced surgeons to avoid malposition. Whether double-bundle ACL reconstruction, which was associated with improved rotational laxity and significantly better IKDC and Lysholm scores compared to the standard single-bundle ACL reconstruction procedure, provide an influence in terms of avoiding osteoarthritis or meniscus degeneration, long-term results of at least 5 years are needed.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adachi N, Ochi M, Uchio Y et al (2004) Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a single- versus double-bundle multistranded hamstring tendons. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:515–520

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aglietti P, Giron F, Buzzi R et al (2004) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: bone-patellar tendon bone compared with double semitendinosus and gracilis tendon grafts: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:2143–2155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aglietti P, Giron F, Cuomo P et al (2007) Single- and double-incision double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:108–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amis A, Bull AMJ, Lie DT (2005) Biomechanics of rotational instability and anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Oper Tech Orthop 15:29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson AF, Snyder RB, Lipscomb AB Jr (2001) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized study of three surgical methods. Am J Sports Med 29:272–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boden B, Griffin L, Garrett W (2000) Etiology and prevention of noncontact ACL injury. Phys Sports Med 28:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brandsson S, Karlsson J, Swärd L et al (2002) Kinematics and laxity of the knee joint after anterior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: pre- and postoperative radiostereometric studies. Am J Sports Med 30:361–367

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Buoncristiani AM, Tjoumakaris FP, Starman JS et al (2006) Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 22:1000–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Caborn DN, Chang HC (2005) Single femoral socket double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using tibialis anterior tendon: description of a new technique. Arthroscopy 21:1273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Colombet P, Robinson J, Christel P et al (2007) Using navigation to measure rotation kinematics during ACL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crawford C, Nyland J, Landes S et al (2007) Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction: a literature review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:946–964

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Daniel DM, Stone ML, Dobson BE et al (1994) Fate of the ACL-injured patient: a prospective outcome study. Am J Sports Med 22:632–644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ejerhed L, Kartus J, Sernert N et al (2003) Patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts for anterior ligament reconstruction? A prospective randomized study with a two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 31:19–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Freedman KB, D’Amato MJ, Nedeff DD et al (2003) Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a metaanalysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med 31:2–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gabriel MT, Wong EK, Woo SL et al (2004) Distribution of in situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament in response to rotatory loads. J Orthop Res 22:85–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. George MS, Dunn WR, Spindler KP (2006) Current concepts review: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 20:26–2037

    Google Scholar 

  17. Girgis FG, Marshal JL, Monajem A (1975) The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint; anatomical, functional and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 106:216–231

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hefti F, Müller W (1993) Current state of evaluation of knee ligament lesions. The new IKDC knee evaluation form. Orthopäde 22:351–362

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Tazawa K et al (2005) Intraoperative evaluation of the anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the OrthoPilot navigation system. Orthopedics 28:1277–1282

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, et al (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

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kodali P, Yang S, Koh J (2008) Computer-assisted surgery for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc 16:67–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Koh J (2005) Computer-assisted navigation and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: accuracy and outcomes. Orthopedics 28:1283–1287

    Google Scholar 

  23. Laxdal G, Kartus J, Hansson L et al (2005) A prospective randomized comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 15:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lopomo N, Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S, et al (2009) Pivot-shift test: analysis and quantification of knee laxity parameters using a navigation system. J Orthop Res. doi:10.1002/jor.20966

  25. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mae T, Shino K, Miyama T (2001) Single- versus two-femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique: biomechanical analysis using a robotic simulator. Arthroscopy 17:708–716

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marcacci M, Molgora AP, Zaffagnini S et al (2003) Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings. Arthroscopy 19:540–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Meredick RB, Kennan JV, Appleby D et al (2007) Outcome of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 36:1414–1421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Picard F, Digioia AM, Moody J et al (2001) Accuracy in tunnel placement for ACL reconstruction. Comparison of traditional arthroscopic and computer-assisted navigation techniques. Comput Aided Surg 6:279–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sakane M, Fox RJ, Woo SL et al (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 

  31. Steckel H, Starman JS, Baums MH, Klinger HM, Schultz W, Fu FH (2007) The double-bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic overview. Scand J Med Sci Sports 17:99–108

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tashman S, Collon D, Anderson K et al (2004) Abnormal rotational motion during running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 32:975–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tegner Y, Lysolm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yagi M, Kuroda R, Nagamune K et al (2006) Double-bundle ACL reconstruction can improve rotational stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:100–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yagi M, Wong EK, Kanamori A et al (2002) Biochemical analysis of an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 30:660–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H et al (2006) Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy 22:240–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zelle BA, Vidal AF, Brucker PU et al (2007) Double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: anatomic and biomechanical rationale. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:87–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma Surgery, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    M. Hofbauer, R. Kdolsky, R. C. Ostermann & S. Aldrian

  2. Institute for Medical Statistics, General Hospital, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    A. Graf

  3. Private Department of Trauma Surgery “Valentin”, Klosterneuburg, Austria

    P. Valentin

  4. Department of Trauma Surgery, General Hospital St. Pölten, St. Pölten, Austria

    M. Figl

Authors
  1. M. Hofbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Valentin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Kdolsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. C. Ostermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Graf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Figl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. Aldrian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Hofbauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hofbauer, M., Valentin, P., Kdolsky, R. et al. Rotational and translational laxity after computer-navigated single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18, 1201–1207 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0992-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0992-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation