Does Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Improve Postoperative Knee Stability Compared With Single-Bundle Techniques? A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 1185-1196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Mascarenhas ◽  
Gregory L. Cvetanovich ◽  
Eli T. Sayegh ◽  
Nikhil N. Verma ◽  
Brian J. Cole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Knee Stability ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Postoperative Knee

Systematic Review of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 2028-2036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul B. Lewis ◽  
A. Dushi Parameswaran ◽  
John-Paul H. Rue ◽  
R. Bach Bernard
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Graft Failure ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background There is increasing interest in comparing the efficacy of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Challenging this comparison, however, has been the lack of an established consensus on the success of single-bundle reconstruction. Hypothesis The current outcomes of single-bundle reconstruction can be clarified from a large unbiased body of evidence for future comparisons with double-bundle reconstructions. Study Design Systematic review. Methods A systematic review of 11 randomized, controlled trials comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon grafting is reported. The respective outcomes of each group were combined to assist the orthopaedic surgeon in assessing the current success of single-bundle reconstruction. The primary factors assessed were tibial subluxation and side-to-side differences in laxity. Secondary outcomes included concomitant injuries and treatments, complications, graft failure, range of motion, and radiographic evidence of degenerative changes. Results In this review of 1024 single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions, 495 concomitant meniscal tears, 95 chondral injuries, and 2 posterior cruciate ligament tears were noted. The complication rate was 6%, and graft failure 4%. Reported pivot-shift test results were negative in 81 % of cases; reported Lachman tests were negative in 59% cases; and KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side differences were ≤5 mm in 86% of cases. Flexion and extension deficits were reported in 9 of 11 studies through mean range of motion or deficit ranges. Radiographic changes of articular surface abnormalities were observed in 7% of the knees at follow-up investigation. Conclusion Systematic review of a significant body of unbiased outcome data on single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction demonstrates it to be a safe, consistent surgical procedure affording reliable results. Clinical Relevance These results may be used to assist orthopaedic surgeons in evaluating the benefit and practicality of pursuing new anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques over standard single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

scholarly journals Comparison of hamstring and quadriceps strength after anatomical versus non-anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hai Jiang ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Rui-Ying Zhang ◽  
Qiu-Jian Zheng ◽  
Meng-Yuan Li
Keyword(s):  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Quadriceps Strength ◽  
Anatomical Reconstruction ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Knee Stability ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Reconstruction Group

Abstract Background Strength recovery of injured knee is an important parameter for patients who want to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Comparison of muscle strength between anatomical and non-anatomical ACLR has not been reported. Purpose To evaluate the difference between anatomical and non-anatomical single-bundle ACLR in hamstring and quadriceps strength and clinical outcomes. Methods Patients received unilateral primary single-bundle hamstring ACLR between January 2017 to January 2018 were recruited in this study. Patients were divided into anatomical reconstruction group (AR group) and non-anatomical reconstruction group (NAR group) according to femoral tunnel aperture position. The hamstring and quadriceps isokinetic strength including peak extension torque, peak flexion torque and H/Q ratio were measured at an angular velocity of 180°/s and 60°/s using an isokinetic dynamometer. The isometric extension and flexion torques were also measured. Hamstring and quadriceps strength were measured preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Knee stability including Lachman test, pivot-shift test, and KT-1000 measurement and subjective knee function including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores were evaluated during the follow-up. Results Seventy-two patients with an average follow-up of 30.4 months (range, 24–35 months) were included in this study. Thirty-three were in AR group and 39 in NAR group. The peak knee flexion torque was significant higher in AR group at 180°/s and 60°/s (P < 0.05 for both velocity) at 6 months postoperatively and showed no difference between the two groups at 12 months postoperatively. The isometric knee extension torque was significant higher in AR group at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05) and showed no difference between the two groups at 12 months postoperatively. No significant differences between AR group and NAR group were found regarding knee stability and subjective knee function evaluations at follow-up. Conclusions Compared with non-anatomical ACLR, anatomical ACLR showed a better recovery of hamstring and quadriceps strength at 6 months postoperatively. However, the discrepancy on hamstring and quadriceps strength between the two groups vanished at 1 year postoperatively.

scholarly journals Is Remnant Preservation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Superior to the Standard Technique? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Wang ◽  
Ziming Liu ◽  
Yuwan Li ◽  
Yihang Peng ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Postoperative Knee

Purpose. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence that aims at comparing the clinical outcomes of remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and standard ACLR. Methods. A systematic review of randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing remnant-preserving ACLR with standard ACLR with a minimum level of evidence of II was performed. Studies were included by strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Extracted data were summarized as preoperative conditions, postoperative clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications. When feasible, meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.3 software. Study methodological quality was evaluated with the modified Coleman methodology score (CMS). Results. Eleven studies (n = 466 remnant-preserving and n = 536 standard) met the inclusion criteria. The mean modified CMS for all included studies was 85.8 (range: 77–92 on a 100-point scale). In total, 466 patients underwent remnant-preserving ACLR by 3 different procedures: standard ACLR plus tibial remnant tensioning (n = 283), selective-bundle augmentation (n = 49), and standard ACLR plus tibial remnant sparing (n = 134). Remnant-preserving ACLR provided a superior outcome of postoperative knee anterior stability (WMD = −0.42, 95% CI, −0.66, −0.17; P<0.01) and Lysholm score (WMD = 2.01, 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.50; P<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to second-look arthroscopy (OR = 1.38, 95% CI, 0.53, 3.62; P=0.51), complications (OR = 1.24 95% CI, 0.76, 2.02; P=0.39), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subject scores, IKDC grades, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test. Summary/conclusion. Remnant-preserving ACLR promotes similar graft synovial coverage and revascularization to standard ACLR. Equivalent or superior postoperative knee stability and clinical scores were observed for remnant-preserving ACLR compared with standard ACLR. No significant difference in the total complication rate between the groups was evident.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document