scholarly journals Double bundle ACL reconstruction leads to better restoration of knee laxity and subjective outcomes than single bundle ACL reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arttu Seppänen ◽  
Piia Suomalainen ◽  
Heini Huhtala ◽  
Heikki Mäenpää ◽  
Tommi Kiekara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare arthroscopic single bundle (SB) and double bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions in the light of all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis of this well-researched topic was performed and subgroup analyses of the medial portal (MP) technique and the transtibial technique (TT) were added as a new idea. The hypothesis was that the DB technique is superior to the SB technique also in subgroup analyses of the MP and TT techniques. Methods Instructions of the PRISMA checklist were followed. Systematic literature search from electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane library and Scopus was performed to find RCTs that compared the SB and DB techniques. Nine outcomes were used to compare these two techniques. Each study was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool and three subgroup analyses (minimum 2-years’ follow-up, TT technique and MP technique) were performed. Results A total of 40 studies were included in this meta-analysis. When analysing all the included studies, the DB technique was superior to the SB technique in KT-1000/2000 evaluation (p < 0.01), IKDC subjective evaluation (p < 0.05), Lysholm scores (p = 0.02), pivot shift (p < 0.01) and IKDC objective evaluation (p = 0.02). Similar results were also found in the subgroup analyses of minimum 2-years’ follow-up and the TT technique. However, there were no differences between the two techniques in a subgroup analysis of the MP technique. Conclusion Generally, DB ACL reconstruction leads to better restoration of knee laxity and subjective outcomes than SB ACL reconstruction. The subgroup analysis of the MP technique revealed that surgeons can achieve equally as good results with both techniques when femoral tunnels are drilled through the medial portal. Level of evidence II.

Single-bundle patellar tendon versus non-anatomical double-bundle hamstrings ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized study at 8-year minimum follow-up

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Zaffagnini ◽  
Danilo Bruni ◽  
Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli ◽  
Tommaso Bonanzinga ◽  
Nicola Lopomo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patellar Tendon ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Prospective Randomized Study ◽  
Single Bundle

scholarly journals Clinical Outcome Evaluation of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Tunnel Positioning Using Gold Standard Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712110133
Author(s):  
Tiago Lazzaretti Fernandes ◽  
Hugo Henrique Moreira ◽  
Renato Andrade ◽  
Sandra Umeda Sasaki ◽  
Wanderley Marques Bernardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Anatomic Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: There have been conflicting results about the theoretical advantages of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes comparing anatomic single- versus double-bundle techniques, anatomic versus nonanatomic techniques, and transportal versus outside-in tunnel drilling for ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A search was performed in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to August 2018 for clinical trials comparing anatomic ACL reconstruction (with tunnel positioning demonstrated using gold standard radiologic techniques) with another technique, with a minimum functional and biomechanical follow-up of 6 months. A meta-analysis was performed to compare clinical and functional outcomes between anatomic single- versus double-bundle reconstruction and between anatomic versus nonanatomic techniques, using the risk difference or the mean difference. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Jadad Score for randomized controlled trials. Results: Included were 15 studies comprising 1290 patients (follow-up, 12-36 months). No significant differences favoring anatomic double-bundle over anatomic single-bundle reconstruction or outside-in over transportal techniques were found. The meta-analyses showed significant differences in the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score (risk difference, –0.14; 95% confidence interval, –0.27 to –0.01) favoring anatomic over nonanatomic reconstruction. No statistically significant differences were found between anatomic and nonanatomic surgical techniques on other functional scores or clinical examination outcomes, including the IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, KT-1000 arthrometer test, or pivot-shift test. Conclusion: Double-bundle reconstruction was not superior to the single-bundle technique in clinical and functional outcomes. Anatomic ACL reconstruction shows significantly superior results over nonanatomic ACL reconstruction, reinforcing the anatomic technique as the gold standard choice for clinical practice.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Ariel de Lima ◽  
Lana Lacerda de Lima ◽  
Nayara Gomes Reis de Souza ◽  
Rodrigo Amorim de Moraes Perez ◽  
Marcel Faraco Sobrado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anterolateral Ligament ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Objectives To compare the clinical outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee. Methods A search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, in line with the PRISMA protocol. The indexation terms used were “anterior cruciate ligament” OR “acl” AND “anterolateral ligament” AND “reconstruction.” Articles that compared patients submitted to combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with those submitted to isolated reconstruction of the ACL, with levels of evidence I, II, and III, were included. Studies with follow-up of less than 2 years and articles that did not use “anatomical” techniques for ALL reconstruction, such as extraarticular tenodesis, were excluded. A meta-analysis with R software was conducted, with a random effects model, presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence level (CI) and statistically significant at p < 0.05. Results Ten articles were selected, with a total of 1495 patients, most of whom were men, of whom 674 submitted to ACL and ALL reconstruction and 821 to isolated ACL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction exhibited a statistically significant advantage in residual pivot shift (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24–0.47, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), rerupture rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19–0.62, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), Lachman test (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40–0.86, I2 = 21%, p < 0.01), and postoperative Lysholm score (MD 2.28, CI 95% 0.75–3.81, I2 = 73%, p < 0.01). Conclusions Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction obtained better postoperative clinical outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction, especially in reducing residual pivot shift and rerupture rate.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of early quadriceps exercises after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Pumell
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Objective. To systematically review the published information regarding the effectiveness and safety of early postoperative quadriceps muscle exercise training on pain, joint laxity, function and range of motion in postoperative anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction adult patients. Data sources. Five databases (CINAHL, PEDro, Pubmed, Science Direct and the Cochrane Library) were searched for studies published from January 1990 to May 2007. Study selection. Publications describing research into the effectiveness of early quadriceps exercises after ACL reconstruction were included. A total of three eligible articles met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction. A review of the three eligible studies was undertaken to describe the key study components. The PEDro Scale was used to determine the methodological quality of the selected trials and the level of evidence of all the eligible studies was categorised according to the evidence hierarchy by Lloyd-Smith.24 Relevant data were extracted by the two reviewer groups to reduce bias. Data synthesis. Due to study heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Effect sizes were calculated provided that sufficient data were provided. Outcome measures included range of motion (ROM), functional performance, pain  and knee laxity. The methodological quality of the studies did not vary considerably across the studies and the average PEDro score was 66%. Marginal significant differences were noted in knee ROM at 1 month postoperatively, pain day 1 postoperatively, knee laxity and subjective evaluation of function at 6 months postoperatively. Conclusion. Early quadriceps exercises can be performed safely in the first 2 postoperative weeks, but clinically significant gains in ROM, function, pain and knee laxity were not evident. Further research should include standardised interventions, measurement time frames and outcome measurement tools to allow for a meta- analysis to be conducted

scholarly journals Effectiveness of early quadriceps exercises after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Pumell
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Objective. To systematically review the published information regarding the effectiveness and safety of early postoperative quadriceps muscle exercise training on pain, joint laxity, function and range of motion in postoperative anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction adult patients. Data sources. Five databases (CINAHL, PEDro, Pubmed, Science Direct and the Cochrane Library) were searched for studies published from January 1990 to May 2007. Study selection. Publications describing research into the effectiveness of early quadriceps exercises after ACL reconstruction were included. A total of three eligible articles met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction. A review of the three eligible studies was undertaken to describe the key study components. The PEDro Scale was used to determine the methodological quality of the selected trials and the level of evidence of all the eligible studies was categorised according to the evidence hierarchy by Lloyd-Smith.24 Relevant data were extracted by the two reviewer groups to reduce bias. Data synthesis. Due to study heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Effect sizes were calculated provided that sufficient data were provided. Outcome measures included range of motion (ROM), functional performance, pain  and knee laxity. The methodological quality of the studies did not vary considerably across the studies and the average PEDro score was 66%. Marginal significant differences were noted in knee ROM at 1 month postoperatively, pain day 1 postoperatively, knee laxity and subjective evaluation of function at 6 months postoperatively. Conclusion. Early quadriceps exercises can be performed safely in the first 2 postoperative weeks, but clinically significant gains in ROM, function, pain and knee laxity were not evident. Further research should include standardised interventions, measurement time frames and outcome measurement tools to allow for a meta- analysis to be conducted

Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Study With 10-Year Results

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (11) ◽  
pp. 2578-2585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Järvelä ◽  
Tommi Kiekara ◽  
Piia Suomalainen ◽  
Timo Järvelä
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
Kt 1000 ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Double Bundle Acl Reconstruction

Background: A long-term follow-up comparing double-bundle and single-bundle techniques for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has not been reported before. Hypothesis: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction may have fewer graft ruptures, lower rates of osteoarthritis (OA), and better stability than single-bundle reconstruction. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Ninety patients were randomized for double-bundle ACL reconstruction with bioabsorbable screw fixation (DB group; n = 30), single-bundle ACL reconstruction with bioabsorbable screw fixation (SBB group; n = 30), and single-bundle ACL reconstruction with metallic screw fixation (SBM group; n = 30). Evaluation methods consisted of a clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometer measurements, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm knee scores, and a radiographic examination of both the operated and contralateral knees. Results: Eighty-one patients (90%) were available at the 10-year follow-up. Eleven patients (1 in the DB group, 7 in the SBB group, and 3 in the SBM group) had a graft failure during the follow-up and went on to undergo revision ACL surgery ( P = .043). In the remaining 70 patients at 10 years, no significant group differences were found in the pivot-shift test findings, KT-1000 arthrometer measurements, or knee scores. The most OA findings were found in the medial compartment of the knee, with 38% of the patients in the operated knee and 28% of the patients in the contralateral nonoperated knee. However, no significant group difference was found. The most severe OA changes were in the patients who had the longest delay from the primary injury to ACL reconstruction ( P = .047) and in the patients who underwent partial meniscal resection at the time of ACL reconstruction ( P = .024). Conclusion: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction resulted in significantly fewer graft failures than single-bundle ACL reconstruction during the follow-up. Knee stability and OA rates were similar at 10 years. The most severe OA changes were found in the patients who had the longest delay from the primary injury to ACL reconstruction and in the patients who underwent partial meniscal resection at the time of ACL reconstruction.

scholarly journals Arthroscopic Reconstruction of Anterior Cruciate Ligaments With Allograft: Single-tunnel Double-bundle Versus Single-tunnel Single-bundle

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weimin Zhu ◽  
Yuanhui Zhou ◽  
Kang Chen ◽  
Yizi Zheng ◽  
Wei Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Joint ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Arthroscopic Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Stability

Abstract Purpose Arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) commonly adopted single-tunnel single-bundle (STSB) or double-tunnel double-bundle (DTDB) methods. Though single-tunnel double-bundle (STDB) has been used in clinical practice, the efficacy remains unclear. The objective of this study is to compare the clinical results of ACL reconstruction using the STDB and STSB techniques. Methods Between March 2010 to June 2013, 78 patients with ACL rupture underwent arthroscopic STDB reconstruction (42 cases) or STSB reconstruction (36 cases) using anterior tibialis tendon allografts in our department. IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores were used to evaluate the subjective function of the knee joint during the postoperative follow-up. In addition, the Lachman test and pivot shift test were used to objectively assess the stability of the knee. Results The average follow-up time is 24.2 ± 5.7 months in the STDB group, and 24.8 ± 6.6 months in the STSB group. Patients in both groups recovered to preoperative sports level with few complications. The postoperative Lysholm, IKDC, Tegner scores, and knee joint stability were significantly improved compared to preoperative status in both groups (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups at the final follow-up (P > 0.05), except for the improvement of pivot shift test positive rate in the STDB group compared with STSB group (P < 0.05). Conclusion Both techniques can be used to restore the stability and function of the knee joint with satisfactory short-term efficacy, and STDB showed better rotational stability than STSB technique, indicating the STDB technique may also considered a reliable method for ACL reconstruction.

Single-Bundle versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial with 6-Year Follow-up

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (09) ◽  
pp. 898-904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Dini ◽  
Laura de Girolamo ◽  
Massimo Cattani ◽  
Michele Rosa ◽  
Paolo Adravanti
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Femoral Tunnel ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Lysholm Score ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

AbstractSingle-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is increasingly used in a large number of patients and it allows obtaining very good clinical and subjective results; however, functional tests show a persistent rotational instability. Biomechanical studies seem to indicate that double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction allows to obtain increased anterior and rotational stability compared with SB. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to compare the clinical outcome and the possible osteoarthritic evolution of patients treated either with a SB (freehand transtibial femoral tunnel) or with a DB technique (outside-in for posterolateral femoral tunnel/inside-out for anteromedial femoral tunnel) at a final follow-up of 6 years. A total of 60 patients with complete ACL rupture (age, 16–40 years) were prospectively randomized to SB (n = 30) or DB (n = 30) groups. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and after surgery at 6 months, 1, 3, and 6 years with Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, and KT-2000 (Medmetric Corp). The degree of osteoarthritis (OA) based on the Kellgren–Lawrence grade was also assessed. No significant differences in background factors between the two groups were observed. Homogeneity was also found in term of preoperative Lysholm score, IKDC, and KT-2000 between SB and DB groups. After 6 months from surgery, both groups showed significant improvements for Lysholm, IKDC, and KT-2000 score with respect to preoperative observations (p < 0.001); however, no significant differences have been observed in term of postoperative values between SB and DB groups at each time point (6-year evaluation: Lysholm score 98.14 ± 10.03 and 97.22 ± 12.82; IKDC normal + nearly normal 95 and 100%; KT-2000 1.68 ± 1.26 and 1.03 ± 1.92 for SB and DB, respectively; all p > 0.05). At the final follow-up, three patients (11.11%) in the DB group and two patients (7.69%) in the SB group presented signs of OA progression. Our study did not reveal any advantages in using DB ACL reconstruction in mid- to long-term follow-up in term of clinical outcome and knee stability, as well as in term of OA progression.

Preoperative knee laxity measurements predict the achievement of a patient-acceptable symptom state after ACL reconstruction: a prospective multicenter study

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Concomitant Injuries ◽  
Patient Acceptable Symptom State ◽  
Tibial Translation

ObjectiveTo determine whether patient-related factors, concomitant injuries and preoperative knee laxity could predict a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) at 1 and 2 years follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in a multicentre cohort.MethodsPatients between 14 and 50 years of age who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft within 1 year from the index injury were eligible. Additionally, only patients who completed the IKDC-SKF questionnaire at 1 or 2 years of follow-ups were included. Preoperative knee laxity assessment of patients in the awake state was performed using rolimeter, the Lachman and the pivot-shift test. The pivot shift was graded according to the IKDC criteria and also quantified by the use of non-invasive technology for (1) lateral tibial translation and (2) tibial acceleration. The quantitative pivot shift (QPS) was examined in the awake state and under anaesthesia (EUA). Univariable logistic regression models were performed with achieving PASS in the IKDC as the dependent variable.ResultsA total of 86 patients had complete data on the IKDC-SKF score at 1-year follow-up, of which 67 patients (77.9%) achieved PASS (age 24.8±9.3 years, 43% females). Two-year data were available for 50 patients, of which 39 patients (78.9%) achieved PASS (age 23.9±9.2 years, 42.0% females). A low-grade manual pivot shift according to IKDC grading had increased odds of achieving PASS at 1 year (OR=2.96 (95% CI 1.01 to 8.66), P<0.05) compared with patients who displayed a high-grade pivot shift preoperatively. However, this was not confirmed by the preoperative QPS measures (awake: tibial translation; OR=0.99,(95% CI 0.72 to 1.35), (n.s.), acceleration; OR=1.04,(95% CI 0.68 to 1.59), (n.s.) EUA: tibial translation; OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), (n.s.), acceleration; OR=1.14 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.40), (n.s.)). None of the studied variables of patient characteristics, concomitant injuries or knee joint laxity predicted PASS at the 2-year follow-up.ConclusionAlmost four in every five patients were able to achieve PASS 1 and 2 years after anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. The presence of preoperative low-grade pivot shift increased the odds of achieving an acceptable level of knee function 1 year after ACL reconstruction compared with high-grade pivot shift; however, QPS did not confirm achievement of PASS in this study.Level of evidenceLevel III, prospective cohort.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document