Search

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine whether the grade of osteoarthritis (OA) is higher with single‐bundle (SB) or double‐bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The hypothesis was that there will be no difference in the grade of OA between the techniques. Methods: This study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a follow‐up period of 15 years. Patients were randomly assigned to either the SB group (n = 78) or the DB group (n = 75). Surgical techniques were anatomic, and the rehabilitation protocol was standardised. Evaluation included Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) difference and absolute OA results. OA was defined as a KL grade of at least 2. Results: At 15‐year follow‐up, information was available on 101 patients (66%), of whom 56 (37%) were accepted in the final statistical analysis. No difference was found between the SB and DB techniques in terms of KL difference or absolute OA results. Significantly less OA was found in the contralateral knee (21%) than in the reconstructed knee (59%) (p < 0.001). Patients with meniscal tears who underwent partial meniscal resection during ACL reconstruction had a significantly higher rate of OA changes (82%) compared with patients with isolated ACL tears (33%) (p < 0.001). A longer delay between initial injury and surgery did not appear to affect the severity of the KL classification. Conclusion: At 15‐year follow‐up, no difference was found between the DB and SB techniques in terms of OA. Level of Evidence: Level I. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Initial tension at graft fixation is one of key factors for good outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Identifying the pre-operative factors that influence postoperative knee laxity under the anterior tibial load is useful in determining the initial tension at graft fixation. Thus, the purpose of this study was to clarify the pre-operative factors affecting the side-to-side difference in anterior laxity immediately after the anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction with a constant initial tension. Methods: Fifty-five patients underwent the anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon grafts. Anterior tibial displacement (ATD) was measured on both knees using KT-2000 Knee Arthrometer under anterior drawer load of 67 N, 89 N, 134 N and manual maximum load at 30° of flexion before ACL reconstruction under anesthesia, and was also measured on the operated knees under 89 N immediately after ACL reconstruction under anesthesia. Then, side-to-side difference (SSD) before and immediately after ACL reconstruction was calculated. Correlative relation between the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction and the ATD/the SSD in each condition was analyzed. Results: The side-to-side difference of ATD immediately after surgery was −3.8 ± 1.7 mm (0 to -8mm) in response of 89 N of anterior load. There was correlation between the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction and all ATD on both knees except for the ATD under manual maximum load on the injured knee, while little correlation between the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction and that before ACL reconstruction was found. Especially, ATD under 89 N on the opposite knees and ATD under 134 N on the injured knees showed selective correlation with the SSD immediately after surgery in the step-wise multiple regression analysis. Conclusion: As the anterior tibial displacements under 89 N on the contra-lateral knee and under 134 N on the injured knee had a significant correlation with the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction, those values may be helpful in determining the increase or decrease in initial tension at graft fixation.

Purpose: The aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate whether the use of the anatomic double-bundle (DB) method for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction results in better clinical outcomes and a lower incidence of graft failure compared with the anatomic single-bundle (SB) method. The hypothesis was that DB ACL reconstruction would result in a lower incidence of graft failure. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either the SB group (n = 78) or the DB group (n = 75). Evaluation included clinical testing, subjective assessments, functional testing, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective grading. Surgical techniques were anatomic, and the rehabilitation protocol was standardized. Results: At 15-year follow-up, information was available on 100 patients (65%), of whom 55 (36%) were accepted in the final statistical analysis. There were almost three times as many graft failures in the SB group, but the result wasn´t statistically significant. Subjective assessments, knee stability (KT -1000 and pivot shift), range of motion (ROM), and functional one leg hop test showed no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, DB ACL reconstruction resulted in better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading (P < 0.001). Conclusion: At the 15-year follow-up, double-bundle surgery resulted in significantly better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading compared to single-bundle surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of double-bundle PCL reconstruction utilizing anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent double-bundle PCL reconstruction between Jan 2019 and Jan 2022, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (n = 36). Based on the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, patients were categorized into two groups: anatomic placement (group A; n = 18) and low tunnel placement (group L; n = 18). We compared the range of motion, stability test, complications, and side-to-side differences in tibial posterior translation using kneeling stress radiography between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding clinical outcomes or complication rates. No significant differences in the posterior drawer test and side-to-side difference on kneeling stress radiography (2.5 ± 1.2 mm in group A vs. 3.7 ± 2.0 mm in group L; p = 0.346). In conclusion, the main findings of this study indicate that both anatomic tunnel and low tibial tunnel placements in double-bundle PCL reconstruction demonstrated comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiologic outcomes, with similar overall complication rates at the 2-year follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in patients aged ≥60 years. Methods: Anatomical DB-ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts was performed in 13 patients aged ≥60 years at our institution between June 2012 and May 2018. The patients included seven men and six women, and the mean age at surgery was 65.0 years (range, 60–73 years). The mean time from injury to surgery was 80.5 months (range, 1–480 months), and the mean follow-up time was 26.2 months (range, 24–42 months). All patients were assessed based on physical examination findings, clinical scores, Kellgren–Lawrence grades preoperatively and at the final postoperative follow-up, intraoperative meniscal or chondral lesions, and perioperative complications. Status of returning to sports for all patients was assessed at the final follow-up. Results: The mean side-to-side differences by arthrometer improved from 4.3 mm (range, 2–8 mm) to 0.9 mm (range, 0–2 mm), and the positive pivot-shift test decreased from 100% to 8%. The mean extensor muscle strength was 93.3% (range, 74–116%) postoperatively. The mean Lysholm score improved from 71.1 (range, 27-85) to 95.2 (range, 89-100). Ten of the 13 patients (77%) returned to their pre-injury level of sports performance, and one patient (8%) returned to sports with less intensity. Intraoperatively, meniscal tears were observed in 10 patients (77%), and chondral lesions >grade 2 were observed in 11 (85%). One patient developed perioperative complications. At the final follow-up, the Kellgren–Lawrence grade worsened in only one patient. No re-injury or infection was observed, and revision surgery was not required for any patients. Conclusions: Anatomical DB-ACL reconstruction could provide satisfactory clinical outcomes and knee function restoration in patients aged ≥60 years. Level of evidence: A retrospective study, case series (IV).

Introduction: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery after failed double-bundle (DB) reconstruction is a challenging procedure. This study aimed to systematically review the research on ACL revision surgery following failed DB reconstruction, providing an overview on indications, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes and potential pitfalls occurring while performing this therapeutic approach. Materials and Methods: Literature published from exception to February 2023 was searched in the Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases. Studies in English reporting on patients who underwent ACL revision surgery after prior failed DB reconstruction were considered. Review articles and expert opinion or editorial pieces were excluded. Outcomes of interest included indications and pre-operative planning, surgical technique and associated procedures, type of revision surgery (either one- or two-stage), graft choice, clinical and functional outcomes, rate of complications, failure rate. Results: Overall, 4 studies met all the inclusion criteria for this review. All were published between 2007 and 2020. The search resulted in two retrospective comparative studies, one case series, and one case report. Average follow-up periods ranged from 24 to 45 months. From these studies, 66 patients (66 knees) were identified. One-stage revision surgery was performed in 64 on 66 patients (97%) with pathologic laxity following DB ACL reconstruction. Most frequently reported outcome was Lysholm score in five studies: average postoperative Lysholm score ranged from 90.5 to 91.0 while Tegner activity level ranged from 5.6 to 7.0. In 4 patients (6%) re-revision surgery was performed due to graft re-rupture. Conclusions: One-stage ACL revision surgery following DB ACL reconstruction appears feasible providing satisfying outcomes and limited complications. The literature on this subject is limited and further comparative studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed, as high-level studies on this topic are still lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of double-bundle PCL reconstruction utilizing anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent double-bundle PCL reconstruction between Jan 2019 and Jan 2022, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (n = 36). Based on the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, patients were categorized into two groups: anatomic placement (group A; n = 18) and low tunnel placement (group L; n = 18). We compared the range of motion, stability test, complications, and side-to-side differences in tibial posterior translation using kneeling stress radiography between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding clinical outcomes or complication rates. No significant differences in the posterior drawer test and side-to-side difference on kneeling stress radiography (2.5 ± 1.2 mm in group A vs. 3.7 ± 2.0 mm in group L; p = 0.346). In conclusion, the main findings of this study indicate that both anatomic tunnel and low tibial tunnel placements in double-bundle PCL reconstruction demonstrated comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiologic outcomes, with similar overall complication rates at the 2-year follow-up.

Background: In double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, tunnel coalition may occur intraoperatively or during the postoperative course. Tibial tunnel coalition is more common compared with femoral tunnel coalition. Once tunnel coalition occurs on the tibial side, rotatory knee laxity may not be controlled as expected. We have developed a new device to avoid tibial tunnel coalition with consistency. The purpose of this video is to present the surgical technique for double-bundle ACL reconstruction using a new drill guide. Indications: The novel guide may be used in all cases with confirmed ACL tear in a physically active patient, identical to indications for current ACL reconstruction using the double-bundle technique. Technique Description: The hamstring tendon is harvested for the ACL grafts. Two guide pins for the anteromedial bundle and posterolateral bundle for the tibial tunnel are inserted through the Anatomic Double-Bundle 2-in-1 Guide System. Cannulated drills and dilators are used to create the tunnel to the final diameter. Next, femoral tunnels are created by the outside-in technique using the Anatomic Double-Bundle 2-in-1 Guide System. Grafts are inserted from the tibia and passed through the femur. The grafts are fixed with a post screw and/or interference screw. Results: Two weeks after surgery, no tibial or femoral coalition (0/20 cases) were confirmed and tibial bony bridge at the intraarticular surface was measured 2.7 ± 0.9 mm using computed tomography (CT). One year after surgery, tibial coalition was confirmed in 13.3% (2/15 cases), and femoral coalition in 6.7% (1/15 cases) on CT image mainly due to tunnel widening. The 2 cases with tibial coalition had tibial bony bridge of less than 2 mm on immediate postoperative CT. Discussion/Conclusion: Using the novel guide, 2 tibial tunnels were created easily and accurately compared with the conventional independent drilling technique. The 2 tunnels can also be created simultaneously with single placement of the guide. Two separate tunnels help maintain expected rotatory knee stability after double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication. Graphical Abstract This is a visual representation of the abstract. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The anatomic double-bundle (DB) technique is purported to be a superior technique due to its mimicking of the double-stranded anatomic formation of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Previous studies with 2-, 5- and 10-year follow-up are conflicted as to whether this technique is superior to the previous gold standard method of ACL reconstruction, the anatomic single-bundle (SB) reconstruction. Purpose/Hypothesis: The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcomes of the anatomic DB technique and anatomic SB technique with independent drilling at 10 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We hypothesized that DB ACL reconstruction would result in a better outcome in terms of the pivot-shift test. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 105 patients (33 women, 72 men; median age, 27 years [range, 18-52 years]) were randomized and underwent ACL reconstruction (DB group: n = 53; SB group: n = 52). All reconstruction procedures were performed anatomically by identifying the ACL footprint, using the anteromedial portal for femoral tunnel drilling, and utilizing interference screws for tibial and femoral fixation. One blinded observer examined the patients both preoperatively and at follow-up (median, 120 months [range, 112-134 months]). Multiple subjective and objective clinical evaluations were used to assess the outcomes. Radiographic assessments of osteoarthritis were performed using the Ahlbäck, Kellgren-Lawrence, and Fairbank classification systems early postoperatively and at the final follow-up. Results: Preoperatively, no differences were found between the study groups. Overall, 70 patients (67%; DB group: n = 39; SB group: n = 31) were available for analysis at 10-year follow-up. No significant difference could be shown between the groups in terms of the pivot-shift grade, knee laxity measurements using the KT-1000 arthrometer, manual Lachman grade, single-leg hop test result, range of motion measurements, Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) score. Correspondingly, no differences were found between the groups regarding the presence of radiographic osteoarthritis at follow-up. Both groups improved at follow-up compared with preoperatively in terms of the pivot-shift grade, knee laxity measurements using the KT-1000 arthrometer, manual Lachman grade, Lysholm knee score, and KOOS score (P <.05 [highest P value for any comparison]). Conclusion: The anatomic DB technique was not superior to the anatomic SB technique with independent drilling at 10-year follow-up in regard to objective and subjective measurements. As such, one could argue that there is no need for the continued use of the anatomic DB technique in an unselected population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) between the anatomic single-bundle (SB) and anatomic double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique after 5-year follow-up (FU). Secondary objectives were to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinical examination, activity level, functional tests and graft failures between the two groups., Methods: The study was a secondary analysis after 5-year FU of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Clinical Trials NCT01033188). One hundred and twenty patients between 18 and 40 years were randomized to either anatomic SB or anatomic DB reconstruction. The Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification grade ≥2 and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas criteria score ≥2 were used for defining OA. Additionally, PROMs were obtained and clinical examinations of the knees were performed. Finally, the number of patients experiencing graft failure in each group was recorded., Results: Radiographic imaging was performed in 39 patients in the SB group and in 37 patients in the DB group. Four patients (10%) in the SB group and two (5%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the KL classification (p = 0.28). Five (13%) in the SB group and three (8%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the OARSI atlas criteria (p = 0.59; difference 5.0% [95% confidence interval, CI: -0.10 to 0.20]). There were no significant differences in the PROMs, clinical examinations, activity levels, or functional tests when comparing the two groups. Of initially 62 SB patients, 14 (23%) experienced graft failure compared to 4 (7%) of the 58 DB patients (p = 0.015; difference 0.016 [95% CI: 0.03-0.29])., Conclusion: At 5-year FU, there were no significant differences in the incidence of OA, PROMS, or other clinical findings comparing the anatomic DB to anatomic SB ACL reconstructed patients. There were fewer graft failures among patients treated with anatomic DB ACL reconstruction., Level of Evidence: II., (© 2024 The Author(s). Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)

Background: Biomechanical studies have shown excellent anteroposterior and rotatory laxity control after double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, but no clinical studies have compared midterm (>5-year) residual laxity between the DB and single-bundle (SB) techniques. Purpose: To clinically compare sagittal and rotatory laxities and residual sagittal laxity on the KT-1000 arthrometer between patients treated with an SB ACL reconstruction and those treated with a DB ACL reconstruction at the 7-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 110 patients were included between January 2006 and December 2007. The patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: those treated with SB ACL reconstruction (n = 63) and those treated with the DB technique (n = 47). All patients were then reviewed at a minimum of 7 years of follow-up; patients with ACL rerupture (n = 3 in the SB group and n = 2 in the DB group) were excluded from the postoperative comparative analysis. Residual anterior laxity (Lachman test), rotatory laxity (pivot-shift test), and sagittal laxity (KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference) were measured and compared between the 2 groups. Results: The mean age at surgery was 23.0 ± 5.1 years for the DB group and 28.1 ± 7.0 years for the SB group, and the mean follow-up was 7.4 ± 0.8 years. No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of age, sex, preoperative laxity on KT-1000, preoperative Tegner score, or concomitant meniscal lesions. Residual postoperative laxity via Lachman testing (P <.01), pivot-shift testing (P =.042), and the KT-1000 arthrometer (P <.01) was statistically significantly in favor of DB reconstruction. Conclusion: DB ACL reconstruction allowed better control of anterior stability during the evaluation via the Lachman test and via objective measurement on the KT-1000, as well as rotatory stability at a minimum of 7 years of follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To perform a systematic review and compare the functional and objective outcomes after single-bundle (SB) vs. double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR). Where possible to pool outcomes and arrive at summary estimates of treatment effect for DB PCLR vs. SB PCLR via an embedded meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) literature search identified 13 eligible studies evaluating clinical outcomes of both techniques for PCLR. Clinical outcome measures included in the meta-analysis were functional outcomes (Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale) and objective measurements of posterior laxity of the operated knee (arthrometer and stress radiographs). Results: The meta-analysis included 603 patients. Three hundred and fifteen patients were treated with SB and two hundred and eighty-eight patients with DB PCLR. There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCLR in postoperative functional Lysholm Scores (CI [− 0.18, 0.17]), Tegner Activity Scales (CI [− 0.32, 0.12]) and IKDC objective grades (CI [− 0.13, 1.17]). Regarding posterior stability using KT-1000 and Kneelax III arthrometer measurements, there were no differences between the SB and DB group. However, double-bundle reconstruction provided better objective outcome of measurement of posterior laxity (CI [0.02, 0.46]) when measured with Telos stress radiography. Conclusion: A systematic review was conducted to identify current best evidence pertaining to DB and SB PCLR. An embedded meta-analysis arrived at similar summary estimates of treatment effect for motion, stability and overall function for both techniques. There is no demonstrable clinically relevant difference between techniques based on the currently available evidence. Level of evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of the study was to make a prospective comparison of the radiological and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Method: This prospective, case-controlled study included 65 patients, separated into 2 groups as 33 patients undergoing single bundle (SB), and 32 patients undergoing double bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction. The patients were evaluated clinically using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Lysholm knee scores. Stability was evaluated with the KT-1000 Arthrometer Measurement, the Lachman and pivot shift tests. Magnetic resonance images (MRI) at 1 and 5 years postoperatively were evaluated by a musculoskeletal radiologist. All the operations were performed by a single surgeon and the clinical evaluations were made by an independent researcher. Results: Evaluation was made of a total of 53 patients (SB: 28, DB: 25). No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups regarding the postoperative IKDC and Lysholm scores. The pivot shift tests were negative in the DB group and positive in two patients of the SB group. The Lachman test was negative in all the patients. No significant difference was determined between the groups. No statistically significant difference was determined between the two groups in respect of the arthrometer measurements. In the SB group, revision surgery was performed in two patients due to graft failure. No graft failure findings were determined in the DB group, and no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of graft failure. On the MRIs taken at 1 year postoperatively, the ACL was seen to be hyperintense in 16 patients in the DB group and 6 patients in the SB group (p = 0.004). On the 5-year MRIs, ACL hypointensity could not be seen in three patients of the SB group and two of the DB group, with no difference determined between the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: In the 5-year follow-up period, no difference was determined between patients undergoing SB ACL reconstruction and those undergoing DB ACL reconstruction regarding clinical scores, knee stability, and MRI findings, but graft maturation occurs later the patients undergoing DB reconstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Of the many issues regarding surgical techniques related to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), single-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB) ACLR is one of the most debated topics. However, it is unclear which of the techniques yields better outcomes after ACLR for ACL injury. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the benefits of SB versus DB ACLR in terms of biomechanical outcomes. Methods The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of SB-ACLR versus DB-ACLR that were published until November 2019. Results Seventeen biomechanical studies were included. The anterior laxity measured using the anterior drawer test showed significantly better results in DB-ACLR when compared with SB-ACLR. In addition, outcomes of the anterior tibial translation test under a simulated pivot shift presented with better results at low flexion and 30° in DB-ACLR, compared with SB-ACLR. However, there were no significant biomechanical differences between the groups in internal rotation. Conclusions The present study demonstrated that both techniques for ACLR are associated with restoration of normal knee kinematics. DB-ACLR is superior to SB-ACLR in terms of restoration of anteroposterior stability. However, which technique yields better improvement in internal rotation laxity, and internal rotation laxity under a simulated pivot shift at a specific angle, remains unclear. Level of evidence This is a level II meta-analysis.

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Trauma & Emergency Surgery / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Previous studies have stated that closely matching the size of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion site footprint is important for biomechanical function and clinical stability after ACL reconstruction. However, the ACL varies widely regarding the area of femoral insertion, tibial insertion, and midsubstance of ACL, and reconstructing the insertion site area with a uniform diameter graft can result in a cross-sectional area that is greater than that of the midsubstance of the native ACL. Therefore, understanding the effect of relative graft size in ACL reconstruction on knee biomechanics is important for surgical planning. Purpose: To assess how the percentage of femoral insertion site affects knee biomechanics in single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 14 human cadaveric knees were scanned with magnetic resonance imaging and tested using a robotic system under an anterior tibial load and a combined rotational load. In total, 7 knee states were evaluated: intact ACL; deficient ACL; single-bundle ACL reconstruction with approximate graft sizes 25% (small), 50% (medium), and 75% (large) of the femoral insertion site; and double-bundle reconstruction of approximately 50% (medium) and 75% (large) of the femoral insertion site, based on the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the graft to the area of the femoral ACL insertion site determined by magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Anterior tibial translation was not significantly larger than the intact state in single-bundle and double-bundle medium graft reconstructions (P >.05) and was significantly greater in the single-bundle small graft reconstruction (P <.05). Anterior knee translation in single-bundle medium graft and large graft reconstructions was not statistically different (P >.05). In contrast, the anterior tibial translation for double-bundle large graft reconstruction was significantly smaller than for double-bundle medium graft reconstruction at low flexion angles (P <.05). The single-bundle small graft force was significantly different from the intact ACL in situ force (P <.05). The graft force with double-bundle large reconstruction was significantly greater than that with the double-bundle medium reconstruction (P <.05) but was not significantly different from that of the intact ACL (P >.05). Conclusion: Knee biomechanics with a single-bundle small graft tended to be significantly different from those of the intact knee. In the kinematic and kinetic data for the single- and double-bundle medium graft reconstruction, only the anterior translation at full extension for the single-bundle reconstruction was significantly different (lower) from that of intact knee. This was a time zero study. Clinical Relevance: This study can provide surgeons with guidance in selecting the graft size for ACL reconstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The present study aimed to investigate the three-dimensional topographic anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) bundle attachment in both ACL-rupture and ACL-intact patients who suffered a noncontact knee injury and identify potential differences. Methods: Magnetic resonance images of 90 ACL-rupture knees and 90 matched ACL-intact knees, who suffered a noncontact knee injury, were used to create 3D ACL insertion models. Results: In the ACL-rupture knees, the femoral origin of the anteromedial (AM) bundle was 24.5 ± 9.0% posterior and 45.5 ± 10.5% proximal to the flexion–extension axis (FEA), whereas the posterolateral (PL) bundle origin was 35.5 ± 12.5% posterior and 22.4 ± 10.3% distal to the FEA. In ACL-rupture knees, the tibial insertion of the AM-bundle was 34.3 ± 4.6% of the tibial plateau depth and 50.7 ± 3.5% of the tibial plateau width, whereas the PL-bundle insertion was 47.5 ± 4.1% of the tibial plateau depth and 56.9 ± 3.4% of the tibial plateau width. In ACL-intact knees, the origin of the AM-bundle was 17.5 ± 9.1% posterior (p < 0.01) and 42.3 ± 10.5% proximal (n.s.) to the FEA, whereas the PL-bundle origin was 32.1 ± 11.1% posterior (n.s.) and 16.3 ± 9.4% distal (p < 0.01) to the FEA. In ACL-intact knees, the insertion of the AM-bundle was 34.4 ± 6.6% of the tibial plateau depth (n.s.) and 48.1 ± 4.6% of the tibial plateau width (n.s.), whereas the PL-bundle insertion was 42.7 ± 5.4% of the tibial plateau depth (p < 0.01) and 57.1 ± 4.8% of the tibial plateau width (n.s.). Conclusion: The current study revealed variations in the three-dimensional topographic anatomy of the native ACL between ACL-rupture and ACL-intact knees, which might help surgeons who perform anatomical double-bundle reconstruction surgery. Level of evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Isolated and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries are associated with severe limitations in daily, professional, and sports activities as well as with devastating long-term effects for the knee joint. As the number of primary and recurrent PCL injuries increases, so does the body of literature, with high-quality evidence evolving in recent years. However, the debate about the ideal treatment approach such as; operative vs. non-operative; single-bundle vs. double-bundle reconstruction; transtibial vs. tibial inlay technique, continues. Ultimately, the goal in the treatment of PCL injuries is restoring native knee kinematics and preventing residual posterior and combined rotatory knee laxity through an individualized approach. Certain demographic, anatomical, and surgical risk factors for failures in operative treatment have been identified. Failures after PCL reconstruction are increasing, confronting the treating surgeon with challenges including the need for revision PCL reconstruction. Part 2 of the evidence-based update on the management of primary and recurrent PCL injuries will summarize the outcomes of operative and non-operative treatment including indications, surgical techniques, complications, and risk factors for recurrent PCL deficiency. This paper aims to support surgeons in decision-making for the treatment of PCL injuries by systematically evaluating underlying risk factors, thus preventing postoperative complications and recurrent knee laxity. Level of evidence: V. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes. Methods This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome. Results Five RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group. Conclusion The DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up.

Purpose: To evaluate the optimal graft tension angles in a medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction with selective bundle tensioning in order to restore patellofemoral contact pressure distributions closest to the native state.Methods: Twelve human cadaveric knee specimens were mounted with the femur on a custom-made fixation device allowing free range of motion in the knee joint for testing. Using a sensitive pressure film (Tekscan) patellofemoral contact pressure was measured in 15° intervals during a dynamic flexion movement from 0°-90° in the native state, in cut MPFL and after MPFL-reconstruction with a gracilis tendon. The graft was separated in two bundles and was fixed independently on the patella using two knotless anchors. Two groups were made with either the proximal or distal bundle fixed at the femur at a knee flexion angle of 30° and the corresponding other bundle subsequently fixed at the femur at 15°, 45°, 60°, 75° and 90° of knee flexion using extra-cortical fixation and controlled tension of 2N in both groups. The sequence of the flexion angles at the graft fixation was alternated. Pressure measurements were repeated after every fixation of the graft.Results: Cutting the MPFL resulted in significantly reduced patellofemoral contact pressure at all flexion angles. After MPFL reconstruction the patellofemoral contact pressure remained significantly reduced during dynamic knee flexion in all tested double-bundle combinations (p < 0.05) except for fixation of the proximal bundle in 30° and the distal bundle in 75°. Selective evaluation of lateral patellofemoral contact pressure, however, showed significant reduction in all tested double-bundle combinations (p < 0.05) from 15° to 90°. Evaluation of isolated medial patellofemoral pressure changes showed no significant difference in all tested combinations compared to the intact knee. Furthermore, evaluation of the isolated proximal and distal patellofemoral contact pressure also revealed a significantly reduced contact pressure in all tested double-bundle combinations (p < 0.05) except for fixation of the proximal bundle in 30° and the distal bundle in 75°.Conclusion: According to this study, selective bundle tensioning in anatomic MPFL-reconstruction should be considered as an easy and more anatomic alternative to current popular techniques to restore patella kinematics and give clear recommendation about knee flexion angle and tension during fixation. Although tensioning two bundles separately may further improve clinical results. If performed, fixation of the graft is recommended under low tension (2N) with the proximal bundle at 30° and the distal bundle at 75° of knee flexion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Of the many issues regarding surgical techniques related to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), single-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB) ACLR is one of the most debated topics. However, it is unclear which of the techniques yields better outcomes after ACLR for ACL injury. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the benefits of SB versus DB ACLR in terms of biomechanical outcomes. Methods: The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of SB-ACLR versus DB-ACLR that were published until November 2019. Results: Seventeen biomechanical studies were included. The anterior laxity measured using the anterior drawer test showed significantly better results in DB-ACLR when compared with SB-ACLR. In addition, outcomes of the anterior tibial translation test under a simulated pivot shift presented with better results at low flexion and 30° in DB-ACLR, compared with SB-ACLR. However, there were no significant biomechanical differences between the groups in internal rotation. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated that both techniques for ACLR are associated with restoration of normal knee kinematics. DB-ACLR is superior to SB-ACLR in terms of restoration of anteroposterior stability. However, which technique yields better improvement in internal rotation laxity, and internal rotation laxity under a simulated pivot shift at a specific angle, remains unclear. Level of evidence: This is a level II meta-analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Initial tension at graft fixation is one of key factors for good outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Identifying the pre-operative factors that influence postoperative knee laxity under the anterior tibial load is useful in determining the initial tension at graft fixation. Thus, the purpose of this study was to clarify the pre-operative factors affecting the side-to-side difference in anterior laxity immediately after the anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction with a constant initial tension., Methods: Fifty-five patients underwent the anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon grafts. Anterior tibial displacement (ATD) was measured on both knees using KT-2000 Knee Arthrometer under anterior drawer load of 67 N, 89 N, 134 N and manual maximum load at 30° of flexion before ACL reconstruction under anesthesia, and was also measured on the operated knees under 89 N immediately after ACL reconstruction under anesthesia. Then, side-to-side difference (SSD) before and immediately after ACL reconstruction was calculated. Correlative relation between the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction and the ATD/the SSD in each condition was analyzed., Results: The side-to-side difference of ATD immediately after surgery was -3.8 ± 1.7 mm (0 to -8mm) in response of 89 N of anterior load. There was correlation between the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction and all ATD on both knees except for the ATD under manual maximum load on the injured knee, while little correlation between the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction and that before ACL reconstruction was found. Especially, ATD under 89 N on the opposite knees and ATD under 134 N on the injured knees showed selective correlation with the SSD immediately after surgery in the step-wise multiple regression analysis., Conclusion: As the anterior tibial displacements under 89 N on the contra-lateral knee and under 134 N on the injured knee had a significant correlation with the SSD immediately after ACL reconstruction, those values may be helpful in determining the increase or decrease in initial tension at graft fixation., Competing Interests: All authors have no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 Asia Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society. Published by Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd.)

Background: This study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in patients aged ≥60 years., Methods: Anatomical DB-ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts was performed in 13 patients aged ≥60 years at our institution between June 2012 and May 2018. The patients included seven men and six women, and the mean age at surgery was 65.0 years (range, 60-73 years). The mean time from injury to surgery was 80.5 months (range, 1-480 months), and the mean follow-up time was 26.2 months (range, 24-42 months). All patients were assessed based on physical examination findings, clinical scores, Kellgren-Lawrence grades preoperatively and at the final postoperative follow-up, intraoperative meniscal or chondral lesions, and perioperative complications. Status of returning to sports for all patients was assessed at the final follow-up., Results: The mean side-to-side differences by arthrometer improved from 4.3 mm (range, 2-8 mm) to 0.9 mm (range, 0-2 mm), and the positive pivot-shift test decreased from 100% to 8%. The mean extensor muscle strength was 93.3% (range, 74-116%) postoperatively. The mean Lysholm score improved from 71.1 (range, 27-85) to 95.2 (range, 89-100). Ten of the 13 patients (77%) returned to their pre-injury level of sports performance, and one patient (8%) returned to sports with less intensity. Intraoperatively, meniscal tears were observed in 10 patients (77%), and chondral lesions >grade 2 were observed in 11 (85%). One patient developed perioperative complications. At the final follow-up, the Kellgren-Lawrence grade worsened in only one patient. No re-injury or infection was observed, and revision surgery was not required for any patients., Conclusions: Anatomical DB-ACL reconstruction could provide satisfactory clinical outcomes and knee function restoration in patients aged ≥60 years., Level of Evidence: A retrospective study, case series (IV)., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article., (© 2023 Asia Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society. Published by Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd.)

Objectives: Compare, retrospectively, the medium- and long-term of return to sport rates and re-injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in patients submitted to single-bundle (SB) compared to double-bundle (DB) technique reconstruction., Methods: Athletes operated by SB or DB ACL reconstruction, with at least five years of follow-up at a single center, were included. The following data were collected: demographic data; competitive sports practice before the injury; previous surgery; injury/surgery to the contralateral knee; return to sports and level of the return; re-injury (time of the re-injury after the first surgery; mechanism of trauma for the re-injury; necessity of operative treatment); signs and complaints related to the knee the last clinical consultation., Results: Seventy-six athletes (27 SB and 49 DB) were included. The return to sport rate (98%) was the same for both groups, and the return to the previous level rate showed an improvement in the DB group but without statistical significance (63% vs. 79%; P = 0.173). However, other outcomes showed higher results for the DB group: lower re-injury rate throughout the follow-up period (41% vs. 18%; P = 0.034) and during the first year of follow-up (22% vs. 4%; P = 0.021), and less stiffness (0% vs. 22%, P = 0.001). While in primary reconstruction cases, there was not a higher re-injury rate using SB (P = 0.744), in the revision cases, SB was correlated with more re-injuries than DB (P = 0.002)., Conclusion: The overall re-injury in the medium- and long-term and the return to practice sports at the same level as before surgery in athletes submitted to DB reconstruction were slightly better than those submitted to SB reconstruction, especially in the cases that were asecond time lesion ( revisioned knees)., Competing Interests: Wagner Castropil is a paid consultant for DePuy Synthes; all other authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

Significantly better stability may be achieved with a Single Bundle Lateral Plasty (SBLP) reconstruction compared with the Single Bundle (SB) and Double Bundle (DB) procedures. The study included 42 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Patients were randomly selected for one of the following surgical procedure defining three study groups: Single-Bundle-Lateral-Plasty, Single-Bundle and Double-Bundle procedures. Laxity evaluation was performed with an intraoperative navigation system. Lachman test (AP30), Drawer test (AP90), Varus-Valgus stress test at 0° and 30° knee flexion (VV0, VV30), Internal-External rotation (IE30, IE90), and pivot shift (PS) test are the clinical test executed for the laxity evaluation. Laxity reduction was defined as the difference between laxity before the fixation of the graft used for the reconstruction and the laxity just after its fixation. For all the analyzed surgical techniques, the pre-reconstruction laxity values were statistically higher (P < 0.05) than the post-reconstruction values for all the analyzed tests. The analysis of the Drawer test and Internal-External rotation at 30° and 90° of knee flexion, highlighted a significant difference at time zero after surgery among the three study groups. The results showed that the SBLP technique had the highest reduction values compared to SB (P IE90 = 0.001) and DB (P AP90 = 0.012; P IE30 = 0.021; P IE90 = 0.003) techniques. SBLP technique showed significantly superior results in terms of antero-posterior and internal-external laxity reduction at time-zero after ACL reconstruction. • Contrasting findings in short- and long- term results have not identified which surgical procedure is superior to the others • SBLP is more effective in controlling AP translation at 90°, and IE tibial rotation at 30° and 90° than the other techniques. • No differences were found regard to varus-valgus rotation and pivot shift test among the different ACL reconstruction approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies showed that compared with single-bundle (SB) precedures, double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction perform better.Objective: To make assurance that distance of TT-TG may be altered along with ACL rupture and reconstruction.Methods: Imaging study of 201 patients's related cases by MRI and CT scans.Results: Compared with the intact knee's overall mean TT-TG value, the mean overall pre/postoperative TT-TG values showed a significant difference. For SB reconstruction, the mean pre/postoperative TT-TG values were 15.67± 2.46 mm and 14.72± 2.48 mm, respectively. Postoperative and intact knee TT-TG values were significantly different (p< 0.001). For DB reconstruction, the pre/postoperative mean TT-TG values were 15.11± 1.99 mm and 13.11± 1.71 mm. Postoperative and intact knee TT-TG values were not significantly different (p= 0.141).Conclusions: The increased TT-TG value from a ruptured ACL was significantly restored after ACL reconstruction. The TT-TG value after SB reconstruction was still obviously larger than that of the intact knee. It showed no significant difference between the postoperative TT-TG of the DB group and intact knees. The original TT-TG values of the knees were much closer to restoration after DB reconstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Biomechanical studies have shown that double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) is better than single-bundle (SB) PCLR in restoring normal biomechanical function and stability. However, most clinical studies report no differences between the technical methods, and there is yet no long-term clinical comparative study. Hypothesis: DB PCLR would show superior results and survivorship outcomes to those of SB PCLR in long-term follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors retrospectively evaluated 64 patients who underwent primary PCLR between 2000 and 2008 and were followed up for a minimum of 10 years: 28 patients underwent SB PCLR (mean ± SD: age, 29.1 ± 12.2 years), and 36 underwent DB PCLR (age, 27.0 ± 9.2 years). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score), side-to-side difference in stress radiographs, osteoarthritis progression, and survival rate were compared between the SB and DB groups at the last follow-up. Results: At the final follow-up, all clinical scores showed no significant differences between the SB and DB groups. The mean side-to-side difference in stress radiographs (SB, 5.3 ± 3.5 mm; DB, 5.0 ± 3.8 mm; P = .828) and osteoarthritis progression (SB, 14.3%; DB, 13.9%; P = .964) were not different between the groups. The 15-year survival rate was 82.1% for SB PCLR and 83.7% for DB PCLR. Conclusion: Both the SB and DB techniques for PCLR showed satisfactory long-term clinical results and survivorship outcomes. There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCLR in clinical, radiologic, and survivorship outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Clinical Relevance: DB PCLR did not show superior clinical results to those of SB PCLR in the long-term follow-up. These results should be considered in the surgical planning for PCLR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts using single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques, and compare the clinical outcomes including the Kujala score, postoperative apprehension, recurrent subluxation or dislocation, and complications.Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant literature using the terms ''medial patellofemoral ligament'' and ''MPFL''. The pooled mean values of improvement in the Kujala score were calculated by random effects meta-analysis. Unweighted estimates for the rates of postoperative apprehension, recurrent subluxation or dislocation, and complications were determined by dividing the total number of occurrences by the total number of knees.Results: Thirty-one articles were included, involving 1063 patients (1116 knees). Two hundred and forty-four patients (254 knees) underwent SB reconstruction, while 819 patients (862 knees) underwent DB reconstruction. The pooled mean values of Kujala score improvement were similar in the SB group (30.1; 95% CI 26.6-33.6) and DB group (30.7; 95% CI 27.7-33.7). The SB group had a significantly greater rate of postoperative apprehension (7.9%) than the DB group (4.1%; P = 0.014). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of recurrent subluxation or dislocation (1.2 and 1.6%) and complications (10.6 and 7.7%).Conclusion: With variability in patient populations and surgical techniques, the DB procedure for isolated MPFL reconstruction demonstrates similar outcomes to the SB technique regarding improvement of knee function, recurrent subluxation or dislocation, and complications. The SB technique may have a greater risk of postoperative apprehension, whereas the DB technique may cause more stiffness.Level Of Evidence: IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are frequently seen in current practice mostly affecting the young, active subjects, and usually require ligament reconstruction in order to restore normal knee kinematics. As worldwide interest in anatomic reconstruction grew over the last decade, we have also refined our technique in order to restore the anatomical function as near to the normal as possible. This anatomical restoration concept is believed to prevent the onset of osteoarthritis, which the non-anatomic reconstructions fail to attain. The knowledge gained from the ACL anatomy, function and kinematics has helped in developing the current anatomic methods of reconstruction, which take into account patient anatomy, the rupture pattern, as well as the comorbidities. We present our approach to anatomical single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction.

The treatment for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficient knee consists in its surgical reconstruction. There are several available and validated techniques, but there are still numerous questions to be answered concerning the best approach in terms of stability, functional outcome, and avoiding further damage in the knee. This paper sought to analyze the studies published in the literature comparing the outcomes of ACL restoration with single-bundle versus double-bundle techniques. The results demonstrate that even if biomechanical studies find an increased steadiness with double-bundle ACL reconstruction, there seems to be no clinical or functional benefit compared with single-bundle reconstruction.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical effects of using anatomical bony landmarks (Parsons' knob and the medial intercondylar ridge) and minimal ablation of the tibial footprint to improve knee anterior instability and synovial graft coverage after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective comparison of outcomes between patients who underwent reconstruction with minimal ablation of the tibial footprint, using an anatomical tibial bony landmark technique, and those who underwent reconstruction with wide ablation of the tibial footprint. Differences between the two groups were evaluated using second-look arthroscopy, radiological assessment of the tunnel position, postoperative anterior knee joint laxity, and clinical outcomes. Results: Use of the anatomical reference and minimal ablation of the tibial footprint resulted in a more anterior positioning of the tibial tunnel, with greater synovial coverage of the graft postoperatively (p=0.01), and improved anterior stability of the knee on second-look arthroscopy. Both groups had comparable clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Use of anatomical tibial bony landmarks that resulted in a more anteromedial tibial tunnel position improved anterior knee laxity, and minimal ablation improved synovial coverage of the graft; however, it did not significantly improve subjective and functional short-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although image analysis has shown that the outside-in (OI) technique is associated with different femoral tunnel geometry than the transportal (TP) technique in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, it is not known whether clinical results differ between the 2 techniques. Purpose: To compare clinical results, second-look arthroscopic findings, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings between the TP and OI techniques in anatomic double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: From November 2010 to March 2013, 128 patients were enrolled in this study and were randomly assigned to either the TP group (64 patients) or the OI group (64 patients), and DB ACL reconstructions were performed. At the minimum 2-year follow-up (34.9 ± 10.9 months), 111 patients (86.7%) were evaluated with multiple clinical scores and stability tests (KT-2000 arthrometer, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test). Ninety-three knees were evaluated for graft continuity, graft tension, and synovialization by use of second-look arthroscopy. Seventy-eight knees were evaluated on MRI for graft continuity, femoral graft tunnel healing, and graft signal/noise quotient (SNQ). The primary outcome was KT-2000 arthrometer results. Results were compared between the TP and OI groups. Results: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of KT-2000 arthrometer results, which was the primary outcome, and other clinical results, with the exception of the postoperative functional test of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score. The ratio of grade A and B on the postoperative functional test of IKDC objective score was significantly larger for the OI group (51/58) than the TP group (36/53) (P = .005). The second-look arthroscopic findings were not significantly different between the 2 groups in either bundle (P > .05). In addition, MRI findings did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (P > .05). Conclusion: With the exception of the functional test of IKDC objective score, we found that clinical results, second-look arthroscopic findings, and MRI findings did not differ significantly between the OI and TP techniques for anatomic ACL reconstruction, although femoral tunnel geometries differed significantly between the 2 techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Recently, there has been a shift in interest towards reconstruction techniques that more closely restore the native anatomy of the ACL. This review paper discusses our approach to individualized anatomic ACL reconstruction, including the anatomy of the ACL, the physical exam, imaging modalities, the surgical technique for anatomic reconstruction including pre- and intraoperative considerations and our postoperative rehabilitation protocol.

Purpose: Studies comparing single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions often include a combined analysis of anatomic and non-anatomic techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the revision rates between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstructions in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register with regard to surgical variables as determined by the anatomic ACL reconstruction scoring checklist (AARSC).Methods: Patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register who underwent either single- or double-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft during the period 2007-2014 were included. The follow-up period started with primary ACL reconstruction, and the outcome measure was set as revision surgery. An online questionnaire based on the items of the AARSC was used to determine the surgical technique implemented in the single-bundle procedures. These were organized into subgroups based on surgical variables, and the revision rates were compared with the double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated and adjusted for confounders by Cox regression.Results: A total of 22,460 patients were included in the study, of which 21,846 were single-bundle and 614 were double-bundle ACL reconstruction. 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 [adjusted HR 1.98 (95% CI 1.12-3.51), p = 0.019]. The subgroup analysis showed a significantly increased risk of revision surgery in patients undergoing single-bundle with anatomic technique using transportal drilling [adjusted HR 2.51 (95% CI 1.39-4.54), p = 0.002] compared with double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Utilizing a more complete anatomic technique according to the AARSC lowered the hazard rate considerably when transportal drilling was performed but still resulted in significantly increased risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle ACL reconstruction [adjusted HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.04-3.38), p = 0.037].Conclusions: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction is associated with a lower risk of revision surgery than single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Single-bundle procedures performed using transportal femoral drilling technique had significantly higher risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle. However, a reference reconstruction with transportal drilling defined as a more complete anatomic reconstruction reduces the risk of revision surgery considerably.Level Of Evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) double-bundle reconstruction with one tibial tunnel displays the same in vitro stability as a conventional double-bundle reconstruction with two tibial tunnels when using the same tensioning protocol.Methods: In 11 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees, ACL double-bundle reconstruction with one and two tibial tunnels was performed. The two grafts were tightened using 80 N in different flexion angles (anteromedial-bundle at 60° and posterolateral-bundle at 15°). Anterior tibial translation (134 N) and translation with combined rotatory and valgus loads (10 Nm valgus stress and 4 Nm internal tibial torque) were determined at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° flexion. Measurements were taken in intact ACL, resected ACL, three-tunnel reconstruction and four-tunnel reconstruction. Additionally, the tension on the grafts was determined. Student's t test was performed for statistical analysis of the related samples. Significance was set at p < 0.017 according to Bonferroni correction.Results: The two reconstructive techniques displayed no significant differences in comparison with the intact ACL in anterior tibial translation at 0°, 60° and 90° of flexion. The same results were obtained for the anterior tibial translation with a combined rotatory load at 60° and 90°. When directly comparing both reconstructive techniques, there were no significant differences for the anterior tibial translation and combined rotatory load at all flexion angles. The measured tension on grafts displayed similar load sharing between both bundles. Except at full extension, both grafts displayed a significantly different tension increase under anterior tibial translation for both techniques (p = 0.0086).Conclusions: Tightening both bundles in ACL double-bundle reconstruction with one or two tibial tunnels in different flexion angles achieved comparable restoration of stability, although there was different load sharing on the bundles. With regard to individualized ACL reconstruction, the double-bundle technique with one tibial tunnel offers a possibility to address small tibial insertion sites without compromising the advantages of a double-bundle procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has evolved gradually and got nationwide attentions in China for 13 years. This review summarizes the experiences we have achieved since the DB ACL reconstruction was started in our country in 1998, regarding choice of grafts, surgical approach, bone tunnel placement, and fixation methods. A growing number of articles reveal that DB ACL reconstruction brings better clinical outcomes regarding the results of KT-1000, pivot-shift, and Lachman tests, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) outcomes, and complications. Superiority of knee stability after the DB compared with that after the single-bundle procedure was clarified by the randomized controlled trial. Currently, there is consensus in China that DB reconstruction is an attractive option when pursuing a better outcome for patients. Meanwhile, individualization is essential and cannot be ignored with respect to choice of grafts, surgical approaches, tunnel placement, and grafts fixation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyse the clinical outcome of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with irradiated versus non-irradiated hamstring allograft.Methods: One hundred and twelve patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study were prospectively randomized consecutively into irradiated hamstring tendon allograft (Ir-Allo) group and non-irradiated allograft (Non-ir-Allo) group. All surgeries were done by the same senior surgeon with double-bundle reconstruction technique. Before surgery and at follow-up points, patients were evaluated by the same observer according to clinical evaluations.Results: Eighty-three patients (Non-ir-Allo, 44; Ir-Allo, 39) fulfilled complete follow-up and got full clinical evaluations. The mean follow-up period was 5.7 years (ranging from 5.0 to 6.5 years). At the final follow-up, significant differences were found when comparing the results of the two groups according to Lachman test, ADT, pivot shift test and KT-2000 arthrometer testing (P < 0.05). According to KT-2000, 86.4 % of patients in the Non-ir-Auto group and 35.9 % in the Ir-Allo group had a side-to-side difference of <3 mm. According to the overall IKDC, functional, subjective evaluations and activity level testing, no significant differences were found between the two groups. Regarding the arthritic progression, there was significant difference between the two groups (Ir-Allo group: 30.8 %, Non-ir-Allo group: 11.4 %, P < 0.05).Conclusion: A significant increase in anterior and rotational laxity in patients of the Ir-Allo group was found according to evaluations. No significant differences in activity level and functional scores were found between the two groups. We do not advocate the irradiated hamstring tendon allograft for ACL reconstruction.Level Of Evidence: I. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The increased prevalence of knee trauma predominantly adds to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear frequencies that require single- or double-bundle reconstructive surgeries. Few studies have demonstrated the superior results of double-bundle reconstruction compared to single-bundle approaches. This study investigated the knee function improvement capacity of both reconstruction techniques in patients with ACL tears. Methods Thirty cases with ACL tears have been enrolled and segregated equally in distinct (single-bundle versus double-bundle) batches. The diagnostic assessments were undertaken through comprehensive clinical history, knee radiographs, Lysholm scoring, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scale, the Lachman analysis, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scale, and the pivot shift method. Results After one year, there was a significant enhancement in the postoperative versus preoperative Lysholm scores in the single-bundle (58.5 ± 21.2 vs. 82.4 ± 26.2, p<0.001) and double-bundle (86.4 ± 22.8 vs 60.3 ± 19.2, p<0.001) groups. There was a significant improvement in the IKDC scores after a follow-up period of one year (p-value: 0.012 and p-value: 0.002, respectively) in both of the study batches. After a year of follow-up, Lysholm scores (p=0.352) and IKDC scores (p=0.574) between the study groups (82.4 ± 26.2 vs. 86.4 ± 22.8) were comparable. Conclusion The clinical outcomes remained comparable between subjects with single-bundle reconstruction versus double-bundle reconstruction subjects with ACL injuries. Findings were similar between the groups after one year and two years of surgical interventions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2023, Das et al.)

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a first choice treatment for ACL-deficient knees, and arthroscopic single-bundle reconstruction has been widely accepted around the world in this regard. Although, such single-bundle reconstructions result in sufficient knee stability in most cases, but some patients have not been satisfied with postsurgical results in both short-term and long term clinical studies. One of the reasons for these unsatisfactory results could be related to the fact that normal function of the native ACL has not been restored by the traditional ACL reconstruction which uses only a single-bundle graft. The natural ACL consists of a 3-dimensional structure with multibundle fascicles, which can be anatomically divided into 2 main bundles, the anteromedial (AM) and the posterolateral (PL) bundles named for the orientation of their tibial insertions. The purpose of the present study was to compare double-bundle and single-bundle ACL reconstruction.Methods: Twenty-two patients with anterior cruciate ligament tear who were candidates for ACL reconstruction were enrolled in the study undertaken in Shariati Hospital from 2009 to 2010. Fourteen patients underwent single-bundle and 8 patients double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The patients were evaluated by arthrometer and physical examination in postoperation follow up visit at least 9 months after the operations.Results: Four out of 14 patients with single-bundle reconstruction had knee joint translation greater than 5 mm but nobody had knee translation more than 5 mm in the double-bundle reconstruction group.Conclusion: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction seems to be more stable than single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

ACL reconstruction is needed to restore the stability and biomechanics properties of the injured knee joints in order to reproduce the function of the native ACL. The single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques are most commonly used to reconstruct the injured ACL. However, its superiority upon each other is still controversial. This study presented a case series of six patients underwent ACL reconstruction, consisted of three patients with SB ACL reconstruction and three patients with DB ACL reconstruction with further T2 mapping for joint instability evaluation. Only two DB patients showed consistent decreased value in every follow-up. ACL tear can generate joint instability. Joint instability is resulted from two mechanisms of relative cartilage overloading. First, there is an abnormal load distribution due to shifting of the center of pressure of the tibiofemoral force, resulting in increased stresses on the articular cartilage of the knee joint. There is also an increase of translation between articular surfaces, resulting in increased shear stresses on the articular cartilage. A trauma of knee joint causes cartilage damage and increased oxidative and metabolic stress of chondrocytes, resulting in chondrocyte senescence acceleration. This case series showed inconsistent results to determine either SB or DB has a better outcome in joint instability, thus further larger studies are needed. • This case series evaluated the radiological outcome using MRI T2-Map as an accurate cartilage detecting modalities in 2 periods. • This case series showed an unexpected MRI T2 map pattern, in which only two patients reported for having a consistent T2 map decreasing value. • This case series showed that there are patients who underwent reconstruction operation after 6 months did not report any joint instability post-operative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The choice of graft type is an important factor to the outcome of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To compare knee joint stability and functional outcomes of anatomic ACL reconstruction with double-bundle hamstring tendon (DBHT) and bone–quadriceps tendon (BQT) autografts. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Ninety-six patients underwent ACL reconstruction with either DBHT (hamstring group) or BQT autograft (quadriceps group). Each group included 48 patients who were retrospectively matched on the basis of age, sex, and body mass index; there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (all P > .05). All patients had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Outcome evaluations included the manual laxity test, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective evaluation, Tegner activity score, modified Lysholm score, anterior knee pain questionnaire, KT-2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference, Cybex II isokinetic testing, and tunnel position evaluation by quadrant method. Results: Manual laxity test results were significantly improved in both groups after surgery (all P < .05). The maximum KT-2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference improved from 4.0 to 1.9 mm in the hamstring group and 3.9 to 2.1 mm in the quadriceps group (P = .65). Modified Lysholm scores in the hamstring and quadriceps groups improved from 69.4 and 70.2 to 88.4 and 92.1 (P = .30), and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective evaluation scores improved from 56.0 and 60.3 to 77.9 and 80.2 (P = .37), respectively. Tegner activity scores for the hamstring and quadriceps groups were 4.7 and 4.6 preoperatively and 4.6 and 4.7 (P = .80) at final follow-up, respectively. There were no between-group differences on postoperative anterior knee pain (P > .05 for all questionnaire categories), nor were there differences in recovered extensor muscle strength during isokinetic testing (82.9% vs 81.0% at 60 deg/s, P = .71; 85.1% vs 83.8% at 180 deg/s, P = .81). However, flexor muscle strength recovery was better in the quadriceps group (86.6% vs 92.2% at 60 deg/s, P = .22; 87.1% vs 99.6% at 180 deg/s, P = .01). There were no significant differences in tunnel positioning between the 2 groups (all P > .05). Conclusion: Anatomic ACL reconstruction with the BQT autograft showed similar knee stability and functional outcome scores when compared with the DBHT autograft. Additionally, better flexor muscle strength recovery was found in the quadriceps group, indicating a potential advantage of the BQT autograft in ACL reconstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]