Search

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]

Abstract Background It is unclear whether different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft trajectories in the distal femur would have different effects on stress generated within the distal femur around the femoral tunnel during knee motion. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine differences in stress patterns around the femoral tunnel created by trans-portal (TP) vs. modified trans-tibial (TT) technique in anatomical ACL reconstruction at different knee flexion angles. Methods Twelve male subjects’ right knees were scanned with a high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scanner (slice thickness: 1 mm) at four different knee flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°). Three-dimensional (3D) models of these four different flexion angles were created and manipulated with several modelling programs. For the TP group, the virtual femoral tunnelling procedure was performed in a 135° flexion model from the low far anteromedial (AM) portal. For the modified TT group, the same knee models were drilled through the modified TT technique at 90° of flexion separately. Virtual grafts under tension of 40 N were put into corresponding bone tunnel and fixed at the outer aperture of femoral tunnels to simulate the suspensory fixation, followed by fixation of the grafts at the middle of tibial tunnels in the 0° knee flexion models. Finally, the models were exported to a finite element analysis package and analysed using ABAQUS/Explicit code (ABAQUS, USA) to monitor the stress occurring at the node where stress distribution occurred most significantly in the femoral bone around the bone tunnel. Results In general, both groups showed a high stress distribution in bony structures around inner and outer orifices of the femoral tunnel. Mean maximal stresses occurring at the lateral femoral condyle around the inner orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were found to be significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles except 90° of flexion. Mean maximal stresses monitored around the outer orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were also significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles. Conclusions Different tunnelling technologies could yield different stress patterns in the lateral femoral condyle around the femoral tunnel. During knee motion, higher stresses were noticed in the TP group than in the modified TT group, especially around inner and outer orifices of the tunnel. Position of the tunnel after reconstruction with the TP technique can have a greater effect on the stress increase in the femur compared to that with the modified TT technique.

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]

Abstract Background All-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a novel technique that has gained attention due to its minimally invasive and graft-saving properties. However, studies comparing MRI-based graft maturity between all-inside and standard ACLR are lacking. Purpose This study focused on the functional, knee laxity, and MRI-based graft maturity characteristics of all-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR. Study Design Randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods Fifty-four patients were randomly assigned to an all-inside reconstruction group (n = 27) or standard reconstruction group (n = 27). Using the same rehabilitation strategy. The Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Lysholm scores were recorded at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 to assess functional recovery. MRI was conducted to measure the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the intra-articular graft to assess the maturity. A higher SNQ indicates lower graft maturity. Knee laxity was assessed using GNRB arthrometer at the postoperative month 12. Results The graft SNQ of the all-inside group was significantly higher than that of the standard group at postoperative month 6 (p 0.05). Both groups exhibited the highest SNQ in the middle region of the graft, followed by the proximal region, and the distal region. Functional scores improved significantly for both groups and had no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The knee laxity was higher in the all-inside group (p 0.05). Conclusions All-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR show good functional outcomes; however, knee laxity was relatively higher in the all-inside ACLR group than in the standard ACLR group. Moreover, both techniques exhibited poor maturity in the middle graft region and the best in the distal region. Graft maturity with all-inside ACLR is inferior to that with standard ACLR in the early postoperative stages. There is no correlation between knee function and graft maturity. Trial registration Clinical trial registration numbers: ChiCTR1800018543 . Date of registration: 09/23/2018.

Background: It is unclear whether different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft trajectories in the distal femur would have different effects on stress generated within the distal femur around the femoral tunnel during knee motion. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine differences in stress patterns around the femoral tunnel created by trans-portal (TP) vs. modified trans-tibial (TT) technique in anatomical ACL reconstruction at different knee flexion angles.Methods: Twelve male subjects' right knees were scanned with a high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scanner (slice thickness: 1 mm) at four different knee flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°). Three-dimensional (3D) models of these four different flexion angles were created and manipulated with several modelling programs. For the TP group, the virtual femoral tunnelling procedure was performed in a 135° flexion model from the low far anteromedial (AM) portal. For the modified TT group, the same knee models were drilled through the modified TT technique at 90° of flexion separately. Virtual grafts under tension of 40 N were put into corresponding bone tunnel and fixed at the outer aperture of femoral tunnels to simulate the suspensory fixation, followed by fixation of the grafts at the middle of tibial tunnels in the 0° knee flexion models. Finally, the models were exported to a finite element analysis package and analysed using ABAQUS/Explicit code (ABAQUS, USA) to monitor the stress occurring at the node where stress distribution occurred most significantly in the femoral bone around the bone tunnel.Results: In general, both groups showed a high stress distribution in bony structures around inner and outer orifices of the femoral tunnel. Mean maximal stresses occurring at the lateral femoral condyle around the inner orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were found to be significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles except 90° of flexion. Mean maximal stresses monitored around the outer orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were also significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles.Conclusions: Different tunnelling technologies could yield different stress patterns in the lateral femoral condyle around the femoral tunnel. During knee motion, higher stresses were noticed in the TP group than in the modified TT group, especially around inner and outer orifices of the tunnel. Position of the tunnel after reconstruction with the TP technique can have a greater effect on the stress increase in the femur compared to that with the modified TT technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal technique for revision posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Purpose: To evaluate midterm outcomes after revision PCL reconstruction using a single-bundle transtibial autograft. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We reviewed 17 patients who underwent revision PCL reconstruction performed in our medical center by a single surgeon from 2003 to 2016. The cohort included 12 male and 5 female patients with a mean age of 31.3 years (range, 17-48 years). All of the patients underwent single-bundle transtibial reconstruction using the same surgical technique and were reviewed at a minimum of 4 years postoperatively. Preoperative and postoperative posterior stress radiography was performed. The preoperative tibial slope and tibiofemoral angle were also measured. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective scores as well as the Lysholm score. Results: The most common factor that contributed to the failure of primary surgery was misplaced tunnels, especially on the femoral side. There were 2 patients who had grade 2 laxity preoperatively, and 15 patients had grade 3 laxity preoperatively. At the latest follow-up, all 17 patients had grade 1 laxity. On posterior stress radiography, posterior displacement improved from 10.8 ± 2.1 mm preoperatively to 2.9 ± 1.1 mm at the latest follow-up (P <.001). The IKDC subjective score improved from 34.9 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 75.3 ± 15.7 postoperatively (P <.001), and the Lysholm score improved from 38.1 ± 10.0 preoperatively to 88.5 ± 7.6 postoperatively (P <.001). All patients reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Lysholm score, and 94% reached the MCID for the IKDC subjective score, with 65% reaching the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, arthroscopic revision PCL reconstruction with a single-bundle transtibial autograft offered satisfactory outcomes at midterm 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]

Background: All-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a novel technique that has gained attention due to its minimally invasive and graft-saving properties. However, studies comparing MRI-based graft maturity between all-inside and standard ACLR are lacking.Purpose: This study focused on the functional, knee laxity, and MRI-based graft maturity characteristics of all-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR.Study Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT).Methods: Fifty-four patients were randomly assigned to an all-inside reconstruction group (n = 27) or standard reconstruction group (n = 27). Using the same rehabilitation strategy. The Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Lysholm scores were recorded at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 to assess functional recovery. MRI was conducted to measure the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the intra-articular graft to assess the maturity. A higher SNQ indicates lower graft maturity. Knee laxity was assessed using GNRB arthrometer at the postoperative month 12.Results: The graft SNQ of the all-inside group was significantly higher than that of the standard group at postoperative month 6 (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in graft SNQ between the two groups at postoperative months 3 and 12 (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited the highest SNQ in the middle region of the graft, followed by the proximal region, and the distal region. Functional scores improved significantly for both groups and had no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The knee laxity was higher in the all-inside group (p < 0.05) at postoperative month 12. There was no correlation between the functional scores and graft maturity in both groups (p > 0.05).Conclusions: All-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR show good functional outcomes; however, knee laxity was relatively higher in the all-inside ACLR group than in the standard ACLR group. Moreover, both techniques exhibited poor maturity in the middle graft region and the best in the distal region. Graft maturity with all-inside ACLR is inferior to that with standard ACLR in the early postoperative stages. There is no correlation between knee function and graft maturity.Trial Registration: Clinical trial registration numbers: ChiCTR1800018543 . Date of registration: 09/23/2018. [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.

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., (© 2024 European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate tunnel position and width in failed primary single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. It was hypothesized that both femoral and tibial bone tunnels are frequently malplaced in terms of a partially anatomic position in the setting of failed SB ACL reconstruction.Methods: Patients with recurrent instability following isolated SB ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts, undergoing revision ACL surgery, were retrospectively included. Further inclusion criteria were age >18 years and availability of preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans and radiographs of the affected knee. Patients with multiligamentous instabilities as well as incomplete or poor radiographs were excluded. Tunnel position was evaluated according to the method described by Harner et al. and Stäubli and Rauschning. Tunnel width was determined on CT scans perpendicular to the bone tunnel axis at three different heights of each bone tunnel.Results: Eighty-two patients met the inclusion criteria and were considered for radiological analysis. Femoral tunnels were graded as anatomic in 60% (49 of 82) of all cases. In the remaining 40% (33/82), 27% of the tunnels were placed partially anatomic and 13% were graded as non-anatomic. Tibial tunnel placement was found to be anatomic in 54% (44/82) of all cases, partially anatomic in 45% and non-anatomic in 1% of the cases. No statistically significant difference between anatomic or partially anatomic tunnel position and tunnel diameter, neither for the femoral nor for the tibial side, was observed (n.s.).Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that there is a high incidence of partially anatomic placed tunnels in failed SB ACL reconstruction. Tunnel width was not associated with tunnel position. Clinically, partially anatomic bone tunnels frequently require a staged procedure with bone grafting and subsequent ACL revision surgery. Thus, surgeons should carefully analyse tunnel position and width preoperatively to properly plan ACL revision surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is regarded as the standard procedure in patients suffering anterior cruciate ligament injuries, whereas the conservative approach often fails to alleviate all issues involved. Controversy still exists in literature regarding aspects of the reconstruction technique and this study aims to provide answers to some of the conflicting aspects that arise in today's literature. We assessed recent literature, with most of the studies dating from 2015 to 2017 and analyzed aspects such as graft choice, surgical technique, tunnel placement and time to intervention. Bone- patellar tendon-bone graft seems to be leading to osteoarthritis, while stability proved relatively deficient when single-bundle reconstruction was performed. Transtibial drilling technique reportedly presents inferior results. Surgery delay was correlated with meniscal injury. The aspects and recommendations in the studies reviewed were not always consonant. The best surgical approach is still debatable and further studies need to be done before reaching consensus in this matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rotatory instability of the knee is very often associated with the anteroposterior laxity in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee and it is most probably caused by lesions of the anterolateral structures such as the capsule and anterolateral ligament. If underdiagnosed or undertreated with isolated ACL reconstruction, this residual instability may lead to reinjury of premature arthritis. This article focuses on the role of lateral extra-articular tenodesis in reestablishing dynamic stability when performed together with ACL reconstruction; then it describes our preferred surgical technique, which always associates ACL and lateral extra-articular tenodesis, and discusses it with other surgical options described in literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article talks about Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures and their treatment, wherein topics include steps to treat the injury surgically, pitfalls of the reconstructive surgery, and postoperative care and physical therapy.

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: 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.

Background: The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcomes of the anatomic double-bundle (DB) and anatomic single-bundle (SB) techniques 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Since more effective restoration of rotational laxity is considered the main advantage of the DB technique, the pivot-shift test was the primary outcome variable of the study. Hypothesis: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction will 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 reconstructions were performed anatomically by identifying the ACL footprints, using the anteromedial portal for the femoral tunnel drilling, and utilizing interference screw for tibial and femoral fixation. A single blinded observer examined the patients preoperatively and at follow-up (median, 64 months; range, 55-75 months). Multiple subjective and objective clinical evaluation tests and radiographic assessments of osteoarthritis (OA) were performed using the Ahlbäck, Kellgren-Lawrence, and Fairbank grading systems at 6 weeks postoperatively and at the final follow-up evaluation. Results: Preoperatively, no differences were found between the study groups, apart from the preinjury Tegner activity level, which was lower in the DB group (SB: mean, 7.8 [range, 3-9]; DB: mean, 7.3 [range, 0-9]; P = .02). Eighty-seven patients (83%) were available for examination at the 5-year follow-up. Statistical differences could not be found between the groups in terms of the pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer laxity measurements, manual Lachman test, single-legged-hop test, square-hop test, range of motion, Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity scale, or Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Correspondingly, no differences were found between the groups regarding the presence of OA at follow-up. However, a significant increase of OA was found within the DB group at the 5-year follow-up. Both groups improved at follow-up compared with the preoperative assessment in terms of the laxity tests, hop tests, and scoring scales. Conclusion: At the 5-year follow-up of an unselected group of patients, anatomic DB reconstruction was not superior to anatomic SB reconstruction in terms of the pivot-shift test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is controversy as to whether double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring tendon graft (DB-HT) or single-bundle ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon graft (SB-PT) obtains the best clinical outcomes. Purpose: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of DB-HT with those of rectangular-tunnel SB-PT (RTSB-PT) at 2-year follow-up and to identify the factors that affect subjective knee functional score. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Sixty-three male patients (mean age, 26.1 years) and 87 female patients (mean age, 25.8 years) were included in this study and were randomly distributed to either the DB-HT (n = 76) or RTSB-PT (n = 74) group. Clinical outcomes (knee flexion range of motion [ROM], heel-height difference, side-to-side difference in anterior laxity, rotational laxity, and Tegner activity score) were compared between the DB-HT and RTSB-PT groups, and examination of factors affecting subjective outcomes (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis and Outcome Score [KOOS] results) was performed by multiple linear regression analysis. Results: Fourteen patients (9 DB-HT, 5 RTSB-PT) had secondary ACL injury within 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction and were excluded from analysis. In the examination of 136 patients at the 24-month follow-up, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in clinical or subjective outcomes. The normalized knee extensor strength of the RTSB-PT group showed negative surgical technique effect in the early postoperative phase (P = .005), but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at the 24-month follow-up (P = .114). There was no significant difference in change of normalized knee flexor strength between the 2 groups (P = .493). Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and presence of meniscus injury were the factors that affected KOOS subscale scores. Conclusion: In this prospective randomized controlled study, there was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary ACL injury and no difference in objective or subjective outcomes between the DB-HT and RTSB-PT reconstruction at 24-month follow-up. Age, sex, presence of meniscus injury, and BMI affected subjective KOOS subscale scores, while surgical technique did not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the outcomes of single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with modified bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) allograft and double-bundle (DB) reconstruction with tibialis anterior allograft. Methods: With 94 patients enroled in the study, 43 subjects who had SB ACL reconstruction with modified BPTB allograft (group S) and 41 subjects of DB ACL reconstruction with tibialis anterior allograft (group D) were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Clinical outcomes including Lachman and pivot-shift tests, KT-1000 arthrometer measurements, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) classification, Lysholm and Tegner activity scores were compared between the two groups at the last follow-up. Results: The mean graft size of the group S, the anteromedial bundle and posterolateral bundle in group D were 9.9 ± 0.2, 7.5 ± 0.4 and 6.6 ± 0.4 mm, with statistically significant difference between the group S graft to either bundle of group D grafts ( p < 0.001). At the last follow-up, there was no statistical difference between the two groups for the Lachman test, pivot-shift test and side-to-side difference. Substantial improvements in the subjective knee function scores were achieved in both groups, but without significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: After a 2-year minimum follow-up, SB ACL reconstruction based on modified BPTB allograft achieved similar clinical outcomes to DB reconstruction with tibialis anterior allograft in knee stability, both anterior-posterior and rotational, as well as knee function. The modified BPTB allograft was recommended as an ideal graft option for the SB ACL reconstruction. Level of evidence: Therapeutic, randomized controlled study, Level II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In anatomical single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the traditional transtibial approach can limit anatomical placement of the femoral tunnel. Surgical Technique: We present a novel three-point freehand technique that allows for anatomic SB ACL reconstruction with the transtibial technique. Materials and Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2012, 55 ACL reconstructions were performed using the three-point freehand technique. All the patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months post-operatively. Clinical evaluation was done using the Lysholm score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade. All patients were analyzed by 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) at 1 week after surgery. Results: The mean Lysholm score improved from 68.2±12.7 points preoperatively to 89.2±8.2 points at final follow-up. At final follow-up, the IKDC grade was normal in 42 patients and nearly normal in 13 patients. None of the patients had a positive pivot shift test, anterior drawer test and Lachman test at final follow-up. The anatomical position of the femoral tunnel was confirmed on 3D CT scans. Conclusions: The three-point freehand technique for SB transtibial ACL reconstruction is a simple, anatomic technique showing good clinical results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several anatomical anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques have been proposed to restore normal joint kinematics. However, the relative superiorities of these techniques with one another and traditional single-bundle reconstructions are unclear. Kinematic responses of five previously reported reconstruction techniques (single-bundle reconstruction using a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft [SBR-BPTB], single-bundle reconstruction using a hamstring tendon graft [SBR-HST], single-tunnel double-bundle reconstruction using a hamstring tendon graft [STDBR-HST], anatomical single-tunnel reconstruction using a hamstring tendon graft [ASTR-HST], and a double-tunnel double-bundle reconstruction using a hamstring tendon graft [DBR-HST]) were systematically analyzed. The knee kinematics were determined under anterior tibial load (134 N) and simulated quadriceps load (400 N) at 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion using a robotic testing system. Anterior joint stability under anterior tibial load was qualified as normal for ASTR-HST and DBR-HST and nearly normal for SBR-BPTB, SBR-HST, and STDBR-HST as per the International Knee Documentation Committee knee examination form categorization. The analysis of this study also demonstrated that SBR-BPTB, STDBR-HST, ASTR-HST, and DBR-HST restored the anterior joint stability to normal condition while the SBR-HST resulted in a nearly normal anterior joint stability under the action of simulated quadriceps load. The medial-lateral translations were restored to normal level by all the reconstructions. The internal tibial rotations under the simulated muscle load were over-constrained by all the reconstruction techniques, and more so by the DBRHST. All five ACL reconstruction techniques could provide either normal or nearly normal anterior joint stability; however, the techniques over-constrained internal tibial rotation under the simulated quadriceps load. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To describe current evidence on single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, in terms of differences in knee kinematics, functional outcomes, patient-reported outcomes and graft failures. Methods: An electronic search was made using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Studies published from January 1995 to August 2011 were included, and an updated search was made in PubMed in July 2012. Therapeutic studies, level of evidence I-III, for isolated primary ACL tears written in English comparing single- and double-bundle reconstruction reporting clinical outcome were included. Quality appraisal based on Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was performed. Results: Of 7,154 potentially eligible studies, 60 papers were included (25 randomised controlled trials, 21 prospective comparative studies, 14 retrospective comparative studies), comprising 4,146 patients (2,072 single-bundle, 2,074 double-bundle). Minor differences were found between study types. An analysis of graft failures revealed fewer re-ruptures in double-bundle reconstruction than single-bundle, 19 and 44, respectively. Up to 45 % of the studies reported a superior outcome in double-bundle reconstruction in terms of antero-posterior laxity, measured with the Lachman, anterior drawer, KT-1000/2000 and navigation. Measurements of rotatory laxity revealed superior results in double-bundle reconstruction measured with pivot shift and navigation in 18/42 (8/15 anatomically reconstructed) and 9/20 studies, respectively. Patient-reported outcome measures and functional outcomes did not differ to a large extent; however, differences when identified were almost exclusively in favour of double-bundle reconstruction. Conclusion: Based on current evidence, double-bundle reconstruction appears to have fewer re-ruptures and less antero-posterior and rotatory laxity. Furthermore, no differences were found in short-term patient-reported outcome measures or objective findings. However, detailed statistical analyses of the included studies divided into homogeneous groups are needed to avoid reporting bias and to confirm any statistical difference. Level of evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Quadriceps tendon grafts have renewed interest for ACL reconstruction; however, biomechanical studies comparing anatomic single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) reconstruction techniques are rare. The purpose of this study was to compare the knee biomechanics in four different types of anatomic ACL reconstruction techniques, using the quadriceps tendon in a human cadaver. Methods: Four different tibial (T) and femoral (F) tunnel configurations, (a) DB-2F-2T, (b) DB-2F-1T, (c) SB-1F-1T and (d) DB-1F-2T, were used for ACL reconstruction using the split quadriceps tendon with patella bone. Ten cadaver knees were subjected to an 89 N anterior tibial load and combined 7 N m valgus and 5 N m internal torques. The anterior tibial translation (ATT) and in situ force were measured using a robotic system for the ACL-intact, ACL-deficient and ACL-reconstructed knees. Results: DB reconstructions mostly restored ATT to the intact ACL. The in situ forces under the anterior load in the DB reconstructions were similar to the intact ACL, but that of the SB reconstruction was different at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion ( P < 0.05). Under combined torques, the in situ force of the SB graft was less than that of intact ACL at 0°, 15° and 30° of knee flexion ( P < 0.05), while that of the ACL DB reconstruction was similar to the intact ACL. Conclusion: DB ACL reconstruction using quadriceps tendon can restore biomechanics of the knee to that of the intact ACL regardless of whether three or four tunnels are used, but SB reconstruction does not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although ACL reconstructions provide satisfactory clinical results nowadays, regardless of the type of graft or the surgical technique used (out-in vs in-out or single- vs double-bundle), the residual rotatory instability which is often detected at clinical follow-ups is still a matter of concern among surgeons. In this paper we try to analyze all the aspects which might contribute to this phenomenon by summarizing the biomechanical functions of the two bundles of the ACL, and by evaluating all the other factors strictly related to the rotatory instability of a reconstructed knee, such as the anatomical positioning of the single- or double-bundle new ACL, or the importance of a valid lateral compartment (LCL, ALTFL). Clinical, biomechanical and cadaver studies are discussed in order to contribute to better understanding of the origin of post-operative residual rotatory instability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This prospective, randomized study was conducted to compare the short-term results of arthroscopic double-bundle with single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. One hundred and eight patients with a symptomatic ACL rupture were randomized to either double-bundle (Group DB) or single-bundle (Group SB) ACL reconstruction. Follow-up was conducted at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively. At the 24-month follow-up, 94 of the 108 patients (87 %) were available for evaluation. The rotational stability, as evaluated by pivot shift test, was significantly superior in the Group DB to that in the Group SB. No significant difference with regard to ACL revisions, total flexion work, mean peak flexion torque and extension work between the groups was detected. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the Tegner activity score, the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, the Lysholm functional score, anterior knee pain or mobility, subjective knee function. In addition, no significant difference in laxity on the Lachman test or the KT-1000 maximum manual force test was investigated. All the results were significantly more satisfactory at each follow-up period than preoperatively, in both groups. Both SB- and DB-ACL reconstruction resulted in satisfactory subjective outcome and objective stability. Both these techniques can therefore be considered as suitable alternatives for ACL reconstruction. Moreover, as it seems to be according to the pivot shift test, the risk for the development of degenerative changes of the knee joint in a long run could be smaller in the Group DB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared to anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction more effectively restored antero-posterior (A-P) laxity, rotatory laxity and reduced frequency of graft rupture. Our hypothesis was that anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction results in superior rotational knee laxity and fewer graft ruptures due to its double-bundle tension pattern, compared with anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Methods: An electronic search was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. All therapeutic trials written in English reporting knee kinematic outcomes and graft rupture rates of primary anatomic double- versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction were included. Only clinical studies of levels I-II evidence were included. Data regarding kinematic tests were extracted and included pivot-shift test, Lachman test, anterior drawer test, KT-1000 measurements, A-P laxity measures using navigation and total internal-external (IRER) laxity measured using navigation, as well as graft failure frequency. Results: A total of 7,154 studies were identified of which 15 papers (8 randomized controlled trials and 7 prospective cohort studies, n = 970 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Anatomic ACL double-bundle reconstruction demonstrated less anterior laxity using KT-1000 arthrometer with a standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.36 (95 % CI 0.214-0.513, p < 0.001) and less A-P laxity measured with navigation (SMD = 0.29 95 % CI 0.01-0.565, p = 0.042). Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction did not lead to significant improvements in pivot-shift test, Lachman test, anterior drawer test, total IRER or graft failure rates compared to anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction is superior to anatomic single-bundle reconstruction in terms of restoration of knee kinematics, primarily A-P laxity. Whether these improvements of laxity result in long-term improvement of clinical meaningful outcomes remains uncertain. Level of evidence: II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with double-bundle and single-bundle techniques. Study design: Meta-analysis Methods: We searched electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar from1966 to Jan 2012 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with double-bundle and single-bundle techniques. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis was performed to pool results. Results: Nineteen RCTs were included with a total of 1686 patients. The pooled analysis across all studies showed that the double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique could have significantly better outcomes in rotational laxity, as assessed by the pivot-shift test, KT grading and IKDC grading than the single-bundle techniques. We found no evidence of a difference in function measured by IKDC scores, KT arthrometer, Lysholm knee, or Tegner activity scores and complications after operations between single and double-bundle ACL reconstruction groups. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated the superiority of double-bundle over single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique has better outcomes in rotational laxity (pivot-shift test, KT grading and IKDC grading). However, for functional recovery, there was no significant difference between single-bundle and double-bundle reconstruction techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]