scholarly journals A retrospective study to compare the clinical effects of individualized anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kang Chen ◽  
Weimin Zhu ◽  
Yizi Zheng ◽  
Fangjie Zhang ◽  
Kan Ouyang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Joint ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Anatomic Reconstruction ◽  
Reconstruction Surgery ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Reconstruction Group

Abstract To evaluate the clinical efficacy of single- and double- bundle individualized anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, we retrospectively analyzed the data and charts of 920 patients with ACL rupture who received individualized anatomic ACL reconstruction surgery at our center. All of the patients underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendons. The patients were divided into two groups: the single-bundle individualized anatomic reconstruction group (N = 539), and the double-bundle individualized anatomic reconstruction group (N = 381). The IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores were used to subjectively evaluate the function of the knee joint during the postoperative follow-up. The Lachman test, pivot shift test and KT-3000 were used to objectively evaluate the stability of the knee. All 920 patients participated in clinical follow-up (average duration: 27.91 ± 3.61 months) achieved satisfied outcomes with few complications. The postoperative IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores, and the objective evaluation of knee joint stability were significantly improved compared to the preoperative status in both groups (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). Therefore, no difference in terms of the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner score, or KT-3000 was observed between the individualized anatomic single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction techniques. Both techniques can be used to restore the stability and functionality of the knee joint with satisfactory short-term efficacy.

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.

scholarly journals Arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments with allograft: Single-tunnel double-bundle versus single-tunnel single-bundle

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weimin Zhu ◽  
Yizi Zheng ◽  
Wei Lu ◽  
Jianyi Xiong ◽  
Daping Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Joint ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Arthroscopic Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Stability

Abstract Background: 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.

Anatomic Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament of the Knee With or Without Reconstruction of the Anterolateral Ligament: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 1558-1566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Abdulrazik Ibrahim ◽  
Emad Mureed Shohdy ◽  
Yousef Marwan ◽  
Sami Abdulghaffar Ramadan ◽  
Abdulrahman Khalid Almisfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Anatomic Reconstruction ◽  
Kt 1000 ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Objective Outcomes ◽  
Reconstruction Group

Background: Rotational instability of the knee remains an issue after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the subjective and objective outcomes of combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee. The hypothesis was that favorable outcomes can be achieved with this surgical procedure compared with isolated anatomic reconstruction of the ACL. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: One hundred ten patients with a unilateral ACL injury and high-grade pivot shift were randomly assigned to undergo either combined ACL and ALL reconstruction (group A) or isolated ACL reconstruction (group B). Preoperative and postoperative evaluations of the patients were conducted by obtaining history details, recording physical examination findings, measuring knee laxity using the KT-1000 arthrometer, and using validated outcome scores for the knee. P < .05 was considered as the cut-off level of statistical significance. The Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess statistical significance. Results: At a mean follow-up of 27 months, 53 and 50 patients in groups A and B, respectively, were available for analysis. No statistically different outcomes were found between the 2 groups except for the KT-1000 arthrometer values. The median KT-1000 arthrometer result for combined ACL and ALL reconstruction was 1.3 mm, while the median result for isolated ACL reconstruction was 1.8 mm ( P < .001). None of the patients (n = 0; 0.0%) who underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction had anterior translation of greater than 5 mm at maximum pulling strength compared with their normal knees at final follow-up. On the other hand, 3 (6.0%) patients who underwent isolated ACL reconstruction had anterior translation of more than 5 mm. No serious complications were found in both groups. Conclusion: Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction was found to be effective in improving subjective and objective outcomes. Nevertheless, these findings were not significantly superior to isolated ACL reconstruction except for the instrumented knee laxity testing results. This might indicate that ALL reconstruction should not be performed routinely for patients undergoing 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.

Low Rates of Return to Preinjury Sport After Bilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate E. Webster ◽  
Julian A. Feller ◽  
Alexander J. Kimp ◽  
Timothy S. Whitehead
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Rates Of Return ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Reconstruction Surgery ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Patients with bilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries tend to report worse results in terms of knee function and quality of life as compared with those with unilateral injury. There are limited data regarding return to preinjury sport in this group. Purpose: To report return-to-sport rates for patients who had bilateral ACL reconstruction and to compare outcomes according to age and sex. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 107 patients (62 male, 45 female) who underwent primary ACL reconstruction surgery to both knees completed a detailed sports activity survey at a mean 5-year follow-up (range, 2.5-10 years). Follow-up also included the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Marx Activity Scale, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Quality of Life subscale. Rates of return to preinjury levels of sport were calculated for the whole cohort, and for further analysis, the group was divided according to age (<25 vs ≥25 years), sex, and time between the reconstruction procedures (<3 vs ≥3 years). Results: The rate of return to preinjury sport after bilateral ACL reconstruction was 40% (95% CI, 31%-50%), as compared with an 83% (95% CI, 74%-88%) return rate after the first reconstruction procedure. Although not statistically significant, return rates were higher for male versus female patients (47% vs 31%) and older versus younger patients (45% vs 31%). Of those who returned to their preinjury levels of sport after the second reconstruction, 72% thought that they could perform as well as before their ACL injuries. In contrast, only 20% thought that they could perform as well if they returned to a lower level. Fear of reinjury was the most common reason cited for failure to return to sport after the second reconstruction. Patient-reported outcome scores were higher for those who returned to their preinjury levels of sport but did not differ for sex and age. Conclusion: Return-to-sport rates drop markedly after a second (contralateral) ACL reconstruction, with less than half of the investigated cohort returning to its preinjury level of sport. Return-to-sport outcomes are less than ideal for patients who have ACL reconstruction surgery to both knees.

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 Influence of Bundle Diameter and Attachment Point on Kinematic Behavior in Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Computational Model

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oh Soo Kwon ◽  
Tserenchimed Purevsuren ◽  
Kyungsoo Kim ◽  
Won Man Park ◽  
Tae-Kyu Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Joint ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Tibial Rotation ◽  
Attachment Point ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Double Bundle Acl Reconstruction

A protocol to choose the graft diameter attachment point of each bundle has not yet been determined since they are usually dependent on a surgeon’s preference. Therefore, the influence of bundle diameters and attachment points on the kinematics of the knee joint needs to be quantitatively analyzed. A three-dimensional knee model was reconstructed with computed tomography images of a 26-year-old man. Based on the model, models of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction were developed. The anterior tibial translations for the anterior drawer test and the internal tibial rotation for the pivot shift test were investigated according to variation of bundle diameters and attachment points. For the model in this study, the knee kinematics after the double bundle ACL reconstruction were dependent on the attachment point and not much influenced by the bundle diameter although larger sized anterior-medial bundles provided increased stability in the knee joint. Therefore, in the clinical setting, the bundle attachment point needs to be considered prior to the bundle diameter, and the current selection method of graft diameters for both bundles appears justified.

scholarly journals REHABILITATION OF NEUROMUSCULAR FUNCTION BY PHYSICAL EXERCISE

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-294
Author(s):  
Qiang Li
Keyword(s):  
Knee Joint ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Nerve Function ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nerve Recovery ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Experimental Group

ABSTRACT Introduction In long-term sports, especially in explosive sports such as accelerated starting, athletes are prone to rupture the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). It is the ultimate goal of ACL reconstruction for athletes to restore the stability (static and dynamic) and mechanical structure of the knee joint through reconstruction surgery. Object This article uses ACL reconstruction to repair patients’ ACL and explores the effect of athletes’ nerve recovery after sports. Methods We collected 35 ACL reconstruction athletes and randomly divided them into two groups (experimental group, 18; control group, 17). After reconstruction, the athletes in the experimental group were treated with sports rehabilitation. Results The experimental and control groups had great differences in knee joint exercise indexes and nerve function recovery. Conclusion Sports rehabilitation training can effectively improve the nerve function of the knee joint after ACL reconstruction. Level of evidence II; Therapeutic studies - investigation of treatment results.

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.

The Effectiveness of a Functional Knee Brace on Joint-Position Sense in Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Reconstructed Individuals

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dai Sugimoto ◽  
Jessica C. LeBlanc ◽  
Sarah E. Wooley ◽  
Lyle J. Micheli ◽  
Dennis E. Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Joint ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Position Sense ◽  
Joint Position Sense ◽  
Joint Position ◽  
Knee Brace ◽  
Reconstruction Surgery ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

It is estimated that approximately 350,000 individuals undergo anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery in each year in the US. Although ACL-reconstruction surgery and postoperative rehabilitation are successfully completed, deficits in postural control remain prevalent in ACL-reconstructed individuals. In order to assist the lack of balance ability and reduce the risk of retear of the reconstructed ACL, physicians often provide a functional knee brace on the patients’ return to physical activity. However, it is not known whether use of the functional knee brace enhances knee-joint position sense in individuals with ACL reconstruction. Thus, the effect of a functional knee brace on knee-joint position sense in an ACL-reconstructed population needs be critically appraised. After systematically review of previously published literature, 3 studies that investigated the effect of a functional knee brace in ACL-reconstructed individuals using joint-position-sense measures were found. They were rated as level 2b evidence in the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine Level of Evidence chart. Synthesis of the reviewed studies indicated inconsistent evidence of a functional knee brace on joint-position improvement after ACL reconstruction. More research is needed to provide sufficient evidence on the effect of a functional knee brace on joint-position sense after ACL reconstruction. Future studies need to measure joint-position sense in closed-kinetic-chain fashion since ACL injury usually occurs under weight-bearing conditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document