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.

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

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.

Accessory Anteromedial Portal may not Provide Clinically Superior Results Compared with the Anteromedial Portal in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (08) ◽  
pp. 716-722
Author(s):  
Shu-Ming Ye ◽  
Jue-Hua Jing ◽  
Hao Lv ◽  
Ji-Sen Zhang ◽  
Xin-Zhong Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Femoral Tunnel ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Tibial Tunnel ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Anteromedial Portal ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

AbstractTechniques using the anteromedial portal (AMP) and accessory anteromedial portal (AAMP) are commonly used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiological and clinical outcomes of arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the AMP or AAMP technique to drill the femoral tunnel. The records of 157 patients who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the AMP or AAMP technique between 2011 and 2015 were reviewed. The femoral tunnel clock-face position and femoral tunnel and tibial tunnel anterior–posterior (AP) inclination angles were assessed on axial or AP magnetic resonance images. At last follow-up, the Lachman test and pivot-shift test were used to evaluate AP and rotational stability, respectively. The Lysholm knee scoring scale and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form were used to evaluate clinical and functional results. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in patient age, sex, follow-up period, or affected side distribution. The mean femoral tunnel inclination angle was 31.13 ± 8.06 degrees in the AMP group and 30.17 ± 9.02 degrees in the AAMP group (p = 0.513). The tibial tunnel inclination angle in the AMP group (16.28 ± 7.89 degrees) was not different from that in the AAMP group (13.70 ± 6.08 degrees). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, Lysholm knee scoring scale, or IKDC scores. The AAMP technique was not clinically superior to the AMP technique in ACL reconstruction. This is a retrospective comparative study and its level of evidence is III.

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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Comparison between functional outcome of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single bundle six fold and four fold semitendinosus and gracilis graft

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Rahul G. Jaju ◽  
Jeevan B. Tonde
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Lachman Test ◽  
Anterior Drawer Test ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">With increase participation in sports activities, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is a common and functionally disabling injury. Hamstring tendon as autografts for arthroscopic ACL reconstructions have shown good clinical and functional outcome in patients. The purpose of present study was to compare the functional outcome of arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using single bundle six fold and four fold ST and G graft.</span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">This was a prospective study conducted between period June 2008 to December 2010.181 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were screened and 113 patients fulfilling the inclusion exclusion criteria were selected for the study</span>.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">All patients completed a minimum of 1 years follow up. In 4 fold group 27.50% were having grade 1 anterior drawer test 22.50% were having grade 1 Lachman test and 17.50% had grade 1 pivot shift test as compared to 6 fold group 6.66% had grade 1 anterior drawer test, 11.66% had grade 1 Lachman test, and 3.33% had grade 1 pivot shift test respectively which was statistically significant (p&lt;0.05). </span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using six fold graft is effective modality of treatment in patient with ACL deficient knee. Six fold graft is thicker in diameter and cross sectional area as compared to four fold graft which occupies more surface area of normal ACL foot print and gives better stability of knee joint in both AP and rotational plane.</span></p><p> </p>

All-Inside Single-Bundle Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament with the Anterior Half of the Peroneus Longus Tendon Compared to the Semitendinosus Tendon: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1022-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingguang Bi ◽  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Shuijun Zhang ◽  
Bin Yao ◽  
Zheping Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Knee Stability ◽  
Peroneus Longus Tendon ◽  
Kt 1000 ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

AbstractThe anterior half of the peroneus longus tendon (AHPLT) has been reported to be acceptable for ligament reconstruction with respect to strength and safety. However, there is little information regarding the clinical outcomes after using the AHPLT compared with other autograft tendons. A prospective randomized controlled study was performed to compare the results of 62 cases of all-inside anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the AHPLT and 62 cases using semitendinosus graft with an average of 30.0 ± 3.6 months' follow-up. Tunnel placements of enrolled cases were measured on three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) and X-ray imaging. Knee stability was assessed using the anterior drawer test, pivot shift test, and KT-1000. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) 2000 subjective score was used to evaluate functional outcomes. The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) and the assessment of eversion muscle strength were performed to evaluate the function of the ankle donor site. Tunnel positions, which were confirmed with 3D CT, were in the anatomical positions. At the final follow-up, there were no significant differences between the semitendinosus group and the AHPLT group in the IKDC score (90.4 ± 7.1 vs. 89.3. ± 8.4), KT 1000 measurements (1.71 ± 0.57 vs. 1.85 ± 0.77), pivot shift test, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0.15 ± 0.36 vs. 0.10 ± 0.30). No obvious ankle site complications were found at 24 months. The average AOFAS score of the AHPLT group was comparable to that of the semitendinosus tendon group (99.1 ± 1.40 vs. 99.5 ± 1.21). There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes or knee stability between the semitendinosus group and the AHPLT group at the 2-year follow-up. An AHPLT autograft may be a good alternative for all-inside ACL reconstruction with respect to its strength, safety, and donor site morbidity.

scholarly journals Surgical intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiangyun Cheng ◽  
Fanxiao Liu ◽  
Dongsheng Zhou ◽  
Alexander C. Paulus
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Reconstruction Technique ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Background: It is still controversial whether the combination of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and extra-articular reconstruction (EAR) have good clinical efficacy. This meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of ACL reconstruction and combined reconstruction. Methods: Electronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched to identify targeted studies. A meta-analysis aims to pool the outcome estimates of interest, such as the Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and the results from the KT-1000/2000 arthrometer test, the Lachman test and the pivot shift test. Results : Twelve studies involving 1146 knees were identified. Compared with single ACL reconstruction, combined reconstruction had better results for a pivot shift of grade 1 (relative ratio [RR] = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83-0.94) and grade 2 (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.99) rather than grade 3 (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.06) and no statistically significant difference for both Lachman grade 1 (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.05) and grade 2 (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.90-1.03). Combined reconstruction resulted in significant improvements on the instrumented joint laxity test when considering a failure standard of more than 5 mm (a side-to-side arthrometric difference) (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98) rather than 3 mm (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03). Moreover, combined reconstruction increased the IKDC score at the 12-month (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -6.38, 95% CI: -9.66 to -3.10), 24-month (WMD = -5.60, 95% CI: -8.54 to -2.66) and 36-month follow-ups (WMD = -4.71, 95% CI: -7.59 to -1.83) and the Tegner score at the 36-month follow-up (WMD = -0.53, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.09), but it did not increase the Lysholm score at the 36-month follow-up (WMD = -0.84, 95% CI: -2.02 to 0.34). Conclusion : With the advances in reconstruction techniques, combined reconstructions were found to be effective in improving rotational stability and to lead to good functional scores. However, obviously, the combined reconstruction technique is more time-consuming and requires an additional incision, which is not suitable for all ACL-deficient patients. Therefore, programs should be personalized and customized for the specific situation of each patient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document