Prospective randomized comparison of anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Yan Xu,Ying-fang Ao,Jian-quan Wang,Guo-qing Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2398-y

2014-01-01

Abstract:To determine if anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is superior to anatomic single-bundle reconstruction in restoring the stabilities and functions of the knee joint.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

[Compare the Clinical Results of Double-Bundle with Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction].

Yan Xu,Ying-fang Ao,Jia-kuo Yu,Hua An,Xiao-peng Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0529-5815.2008.04.011

2008-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical results of double and single bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.METHODS:From 2005 May to December the data of 33 patients (4 lost follow) with double-bundle and 41 patients (8 lost follow) with single-bundle reconstruction of ACL using auto-hamstring tendons was retrospectively investigated. The follow-up was 14-22 months (average 18 months) of double-bundle group and 14-21 months (average 18 months) of single-bundle group. The IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores, KT-2000 and Biodex were used to evaluate the clinical results.RESULTS:The IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores were increased significantly from 60, 66, 4 before the operation to 85, 94 and 6 respectively after the double-bundle reconstruction. The KT-2000 results showed that at 30 and 90 degree 134 N the anterior-posterior translations were significantly decreased from 5.8 and 2.4 mm to 1.2 and 1.1 mm respectively of the double-bundle group (P < 0.01). The peak torques of the extend and flex muscles of the involved knee at 60 degrees/s and 120 degrees/s were only at 81%, 87%, 76% and 85% of the contralateral knee of the double-bundle group. And the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.01). There were no differences between the two groups of any index, but the KT value at 30 degree and the extensor peak torque of the double-bundle group manifested a better tendency.CONCLUSIONS:Both double-bundle and single-bundle ACL reconstruction can restore the stability and improve the function of the knee, and the double-bundle group shows a better tendency at the 30 degree stability and the extensor strength.
Comparison of Arthroscopic Single-tunnel Double-bundle and Single-tunnel Single-bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions

Ju Xiaodong,Wang Jianquan,Ao Yingfang,Mei Yu,Zhang Xin,Wang Jianing,Zhao Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16038/j.1000-6710.2013.07.010

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the clinical outcome of single-tunnel double-bundle and singletunnel single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL) reconstructions.Methods From October 2011 to March 2012,48 cases of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction were randomly selected and divided into a single-tunnel double-bundle group(n=24) and a single-tunnel single-bundle group(n=24).Hamstring tendons autograft was used for all patients.Femoral Intrafix was used to fix the graft at the femoral site in single-tunnel double-bundle group,and Endobutton was used in single-tunnel single-bundle group.Postoperative follow-up assessment included the International Knee Documentation Committee(IKDC),Lysholm and Tegner score,and KT-2000 measurement.Results Average follow-up was 14.71 ±1.69 months.The IKDC,Lysholm and Tegner scores were significantly improved after surgery in both groups without significant inter-group difference.There was no difference between the two groups in mean sideto-side difference of KT-2000(1.44 mm vs 1.63 mm at 30° of flexion,1.15 mm vs 1.31 mm at 90° of flexion,P > 0.05).Conclusion Single-tunnel double-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendons autograft is a simple,effective,and satisfactory technique,and can restore the knee stability well without significant difference from single-tunnel single-bundle ACL reconstruction in functional outcomes and knee stability.
A Systematic Review of Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Yan-Song Qi,Hai-Jun Wang,Shao-Jie Wang,Zheng-Zheng Zhang,Ai-Bing Huang,Jia-Kuo Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0896-z

IF: 2.562

2016-01-01

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract:Background: Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PCL) ruptures are common sports injuries. One of the key controversies in PCL reconstruction is whether double-bundle reconstruction provides biomechanical and clinical outcomes superior to single-bundle reconstruction.Methods: We performed a comprehensive search in multiple databases to evaluate the advantages of single-bundle or double bundle reconstructions in anteroposterior stability, graft tension, rotational stability, and functional outcome.Results: Biomechanical comparisons evaluating anteroposterior stability described either no difference or increased stability in double-bundle reconstructions. Comparing these results is complicated by different graft choices, tensioning techniques, and tunnel positions. Biomechanical studies of graft tension demonstrated conflicting results regarding the optimal reconstruction technique. Seven retrospective clinical studies of single-and double-bundle reconstructions with methodological limitations reported no difference in clinical outcome.Conclusions: The superiority of single-bundle or double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains uncertain.
Comparison Between Single- and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions for Knee with Grade 2 Medial Collateral Ligament Injury.

Lian-Xu Chen,Hong-Hong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000024846

IF: 1.6

2021-01-01

Medicine

Abstract:ABSTRACT:This research discussed clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction accompanied by conservative treatment for grade 2 medial collateral ligament injury, and comparison was performed between double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Clinical information was retrospectively collected for 41 cases suffering anterior cruciate ligament injuries accompanied by grade 2 medial collateral ligament injuries. Within 14 days after their injuries 22 cases received single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (SB group), while 19 were treated with double-bundle medial collateral ligament reconstruction (DB group). Physical statuses were estimated based on International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, Lachman, pivot shift and manual valgus test, and range of motion (ROM), while side-to-side difference was estimated through KT 2000 arthometer.Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction accompanied by conservative treatment showed significantly improved anteroposterior, rotational and valgus stability, and IKDC and Lysholm scores (in comparison to pre-operative status, P < .05). Incidence of pivot shift was dramatically lower in DB group (2/19) than in SB group (7/22 and 2/22; P = .028). No substantial dissimilarity existed between DB and SB groups either in Lachman and valgus tests, KT 2000, ROM, IKDC, or Lysholm scores.Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction accompanied by conservative treatment could achieve outstanding stability and functional manifestations for cases facing anterior cruciate ligament injury accompanied by grade 2 medial collateral ligament injury. Moreover, double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior to single-bundle operation in treating rotational instability of the knee.Level of evidence: Retrospective comparative study, Level III.
Clinical Evaluation of Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedure Using Hamstring Tendon Grafts: a Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Study.

Wang Jian-quan,Ao Ying-fang,Yu Chang-long,Liu Ping,Xu Yan,Chen Lin-xin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2009.06.022

2009-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:In clinical studies there is still a lot of controversy about the increased anterior and rotational stability between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of four-tunnel DB ACL reconstruction.METHODS:Sixty-four consecutive patients with ACL ruptures from May 2005 to May 2006 were randomly assigned into two groups: 32 cases for SB ACL reconstruction and 32 cases for DB ACL reconstruction. Clinical data, including KT 2000, Biodex test, Lysholm score, Tegner score and IKDC score, were prospectively collected until at least 10 months post-operative.RESULTS:The average values of KT 2000 were (1.47 +/- 1.17) mm and (1.68 +/- 1.14) mm for the SB and DB ACL reconstruction groups at 30 degrees of knee flexion (P > 0.05), and were (1.04 +/- 0.98) mm and (1.13 +/- 0.98) mm at 90 degrees of knee flexion (P > 0.05). There were also no significant differences in Lysholm score, Tegner score, IKDC score and Biodex test scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). The operation time of DB ACL reconstruction was 20 minutes longer than the SB ACL reconstruction (P < 0.05).CONCLUSION:Double bundle ACL reconstructions have no obvious clinical advantages over single bundle ACL reconstructions.
Clinical efficacy of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a retrospective study

Tian-Xin Chen,Mei-Qi Yu,Ting-Ting Dong,Yan Li,Sheng Zhang,Lei Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06360-9

IF: 3.479

2024-11-01

International Orthopaedics

Abstract:To compare the functional and clinical outcomes of knee joints in patients over a 10-year period following posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction with single-bundle versus double-bundle.

orthopedics
[Effectiveness Comparison of Anatomical Single-Bundle and Over-the-top Single-Bundle Reconstruction of Anterior Cruciate Ligament].

Yu Dong,Shiyi Chen,Yunxia Li,Jiwu Chen,Yinghui Hua

2011-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness of anatomical single-bundle (ASB) and over-the-top single-bundle (OSB) reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). METHODS:Between January 2008 and June 2008, 64 patients with ACL injury underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. ASB ACL reconstruction was performed in 28 cases (ASB group) and OSB ACL reconstruction in 36 cases (OSB group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and side-to-side difference between 2 groups (P > 0.05). RESULTS:All incisions healed by first intention; no infection or other complications occurred. All cases were followed up 20-24 months (mean, 21.5 months). There were significant differences in the IKDC score, Lysholm score, and the side-to-side difference between last follow-up and preoperation in 2 groups (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups at last follow-up (P > 0.05). Significant differences were found in negative rate of the pivot shift test between last follow-up and preoperation in ASB group and between 2 groups at last follow-up (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between last follow-up and preoperation in OSB group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION:The effectiveness of arthroscopic ASB ACL reconstruction is better than that of arthroscopic OSB ACL reconstruction, especially in controlling rotational stability.
[Effectiveness Comparison of Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Deep-Frozen Allografts].

Chaohua Zhu,Baicheng Chen,Ran Sun,Hu Liu,Zhihui Wang,Lei Xie

2011-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness between arthroscopic double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with deep-frozen allografts.METHODS:Between January 2008 and January 2009, 105 patients undergoing arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with deep-frozen allografts were selected and randomly divided into single-bundle (n = 59) or double-bundle (n = 46) groups. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively 6, 12, and 24 months. Of the patients, 93 (51 in the single-bundle group and 42 in the double-bundle group) were available for full evaluation. There was no significant difference in gender, age, height, weight, disease duration, complication, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and Lysholm score between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The anterior drawer test and the Lachman test for all were rated as + in 2 groups, and the pivot shift test were rated as ++ before operation.RESULTS:All wounds healed by first intention, and no related complication such as fracture, infection, or deep venous thrombosis was observed. There was no significant difference in the IKDC score, Lysholm score, anterior drawer test, pivot shift test, and Lachman test between 2 groups at 6-month and 12-month follow-up (P > 0.05). The IKDC score, Lysholm score, pivot shift test, Lachman test, and the side-to-side difference measured by KT-1000 arthrometer in the double-bundle group were significantly better than those in single-bundle group at 24-month follow-up (P < 0.05).CONCLUSION:The double-bundle ACL reconstruction with deep-frozen allografts has better effectiveness than the single-bundle ACL reconstruction.
Comparison Between Double- and Single-bundle Arthroscopic Anterior Cructiate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bonepatellar Tendon-bone Allograft

Jiang Dong,Ao Yingfang,Xie Xing,江东,敖英芳,谢兴,龚熹,陈连旭,罗浩,王永健,余家阔,于长隆,王健全,崔国庆,胡跃林,田得祥

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2011.12.011

2011-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the mid-term clinical results of arthroscopic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL) reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone(BPTB) allograft.Methods The study was carried on 61 patients with broken ACL,who received arthroscopic ACL reconstruction by using BPTB between July 2003 and July 2007.According to the operation and graft types,the patients were divided into 3 groups: BPTB double-bundle allograft group(20 patients),BPTB single-bundle allograft group(21 patients),and BPTB single-bundle autograft group(20 patients).Median follow-up were(41.6±3.0),(42.3±3.9),and(42.5±2.7) months respectively in the 3 groups.At the follow-up,the clinical outcome of the patients was evaluated by assessing the International Knee Documentation Committee(IKDC) 2000 subjective scores,Lysholm scores,Tegner scores,anterior knee pain,routine KT-2000 and back-pushing KT-2000 side-to-side difference,thigh circumference difference and Biodex isokinetic dynamometer system.Results No significant difference was found in terms of the IKDC2000 scores,Lysholm scores,Tegner scores,thigh circumference difference,muscle strength and routine KT-2000 side-to-side difference(P>0.05).The Pivot-shift positive rate(5%,1/20) of the BPTB double-bundle allograft group was 1/6 of that of the BPTB single-bundle allograft group(29%,6/21) and 1/4 of that of the BPTB single-bundle autograft group(20%,4/20).Compared to the single-bundle groups,significant less back-pushing KT-2000 anterior laxity at 30°(median: 15 dl-0.5 mm,20 dl-0.5 mm,and 30 dl-0.9 mm) was revealed in the BPTB double-bundle allograft group(P<0.05).The BPTB double-bundle allograft group(15%,3/20) and the BPTB single-bundle allograft group(10%,2/21) showed significant less anterior knee pain than that of the BPTB single-bundle autograft group(75%,15/20,χ2=24.201,P=0.000).Conclusions The double-bundle ACL reconstruction with BPTB allograft showed better total A-P stability,rotatory stability and less donor site morbidity.It is an alternative of primary doubule-bundle ACL reconstruction for the patients with wider intercondylar fossa.
[Comparative Study on the Clinic Effects of Arthroscopic Reconstructions of Single-Bundle and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament].

Jia-Kuo Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-7600.2007.06.008

2016-01-01

Abstract:Objective To discuss the clinic differences among arthroscopic reconstructions of partial, single-bundle and double-bundle ACLs after ACL injury of the knee. Methods A total of 56 cases of ACL arthroscopic reconstruction were involved in this study, including 11 partial reconstructions, 25 single-bundle ones and 20 double-bundle ones. The IKDC2000, Tegner and Lysholm evaluations were performed for every patient pre- and postoperatively. KT-2000 and Back Pushing KT-2000 measurements were also done. Paired t-test was used to analyze the IKDC, Tegner and Lysholm scores before operation and at follow-up time. Mann-Whitney was used to analyze KT-2000 results. Results Follow-up time averaged 19.84± 5.03 months （13 to 22 months） . Paired t-test showed the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores were significantly improved after operation. Back Pushing KT-2000 Measurement showed double-bundle ACL reconstruction restored the knee stability better than single-bundle technique, and partial ACL reconstruction resulted in the best outcome among the 3 groups. Normal KT-2000 measurement failed to detect any significant difference among them. Conclusion Partial ACL reconstruction can restore the knee stability better than the double-bundle reconstruction, and the double-bundle ACL reconstruction better than the single-bundle one. Back Pushing KT-2000 Measurement may have important value in knee stability analysis for partial and double-bundle ACL reconstructions. Key words: Anterior cruciate ligament; Rupture; Reconstruction
[Comparison of Single and Double Bundle Isolate Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Autograft].

Yan Xu,Yu Yin,Jian-quan Wang,Ying-fang Ao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2013.03.014

2013-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To determine if double bundle hamstring autograft posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction could bring better outcomes than single bundle.METHODS:From June 2007 to June 2009, there were 22 subjects, including 16 male and 6 female patients with an average (37 ± 13) years old (16-54 years old) were reconstructed with single bundle PCL reconstruction (single bundle group), 24 subjects, including 18 male and 6 female patients with an average (37 ± 10) years old (17 - 52 years old) were reconstructed with double bundle PCL reconstruction (double bundle group). There were no differences between the two groups on patients' demographics and the duration from the injury to the operation (P > 0.05). Clinical outcomes, KT2000 and tunnel placements of all the patients were measured and analyzed.RESULTS:The two groups were retrospectively studied and compared with a (29 ± 9) months (24 - 55 months) follow-up. Operation duration of double bundle group was (92 ± 8) minutes which was significantly longer than the single bundle group (78 ± 13) minutes (t = 2.474, P < 0.05). IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores were all significantly improved at the last follow-up of both groups (single bundle group: t = 9.578, 13.115 and 8.165, P < 0.01; double bundle group: t = 4.390, 5.522 and 4.313, P < 0.05). Post operative KT2000 side-to-side difference of the double bundle group was significantly smaller than that of the single bundle group under maximum posterior force with the knee in 90° flexion ((1.5 ± 1.5) mm vs. (4.0 ± 2.9) mm, t = 2.538, P = 0.019). There were 66.7% of the patients of double bundle group were normal which was significantly higher than 31.8% of the single bundle group on the IKDC knee examination form (χ² = 5.576, P = 0.018).CONCLUSIONS:Single or double bundle PCL reconstruction could restore the knee's stability and function satisfied. There are no differences between two groups in clinical scores, but double group manifestes a better anterior-posterior stability.
Comparison Between Single- and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with 6-to 8-Stranded Hamstring Autograft: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial

Yulei Liu,Guoqing Cui,Hui Yan,Yuping Yang,Yingfang Ao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516650876

IF: 4.8

2016-01-01

The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Background:Whether double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with 6- to 8-stranded hamstring autograft (HG) is better than single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction remains debatable, as long-term follow-up data are lacking.Purpose:To prospectively investigate and compare the long-term results of DB and SB ACL reconstruction with a 6- to 8-stranded HG.Study Design:Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence: 1.Methods:A total of 80 patients with chronic ACL rupture were randomized to SB or DB ACL reconstruction with a 6- to 8-stranded HG. In the SB group, both the semitendinosus tendon (ST) and the gracilis tendon (GT) were prepared in 3 or 4 strands, with a total of 6 to 8 strands. In the DB group, the ST was prepared in 3 or 4 strands used for the anteromedial bundle, and the GT was prepared in the same manner for the posterolateral bundle. Each graft was fixed with an EndoButton, a bioabsorbable interference screw, and a staple. Outcome assessment was performed by a blinded independent observer using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner, and Lysholm scores, as well as range of motion (ROM), Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference, and return-to-sport data.Results:A total of 68 patients (DB group, 34; SB group, 34) were observed for a mean of 80 months (range, 74-86 months). There were 2 traumatic instability failures and two 5° extension restrictions in the DB group, while no failures or 5° extension restrictions were observed in the SB group. The mean Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores improved significantly in both groups compared with preoperation scores ( P < .05). No patient had a positive Lachman test result. No significant differences were found between groups in functional scores, incidence of pivot shift, ROM, Lachman test, KT-2000 arthrometer anterior laxity, or time and level of return to sport.Conclusion:Both SB and DB ACL reconstruction with 6- to 8-stranded HG showed satisfactory results in subjective scores and anteroposterior and rotational stability over a nearly 7-year follow-up; neither technique was superior.
Which technique provides more benefits in return to sports and clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Double-bundle or single-bundle? A randomized controlled study

Xinjie Wang,Zijie Xu,Shitang Song,Zimu Mao,Ximeng Huang,Michael Luo,Xiao Zhou,Bingbing Xu,Jing Ye,Yifan Song,Jiakuo Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000003267

2024-10-10

Abstract:Background: The achievement of an optimal return to sport (RTS) has remained a key goal after sports-related injuries, with the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of different surgical approaches for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. This study aims to assess clinical outcomes and RTS across various surgical methods, such as anatomical single-bundle reconstruction (ASBR), central-axial single-bundle reconstruction (CASBR), and double-bundle reconstruction (DBR). Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, comprising 191 patients who underwent ACL rupture. These patients were divided into three groups based on the ACL reconstruction techniques they received (ASBR, CASBR, DBR). Over the 2-year follow-up period, the study assessed RTS through four single-hop tests, isokinetic extension tests, and limb asymmetry indices. Postoperative graft status was determined using the signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ), while knee function was evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC-2000) score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and degree of knee laxity. A binary logistic regression model was developed to forecast the factors influencing ideal RTS. Results: DBR (67.63%) and CASBR (58.00%) exhibited higher RTS passing rates compared to ASBR (30.39%; χ2 = 19.57, P <0.05). Quadriceps strength symmetry in the lower limbs was identified as the key determinant of RTS (χ2 = 17.08, P <0.05). The RTS rate was influenced by SNQs of the graft's tibial site (odds ratio: 0.544) and quadriceps strength of the reconstructed knee joint at 60°/s (odds ratio: 6.346). Notably, the DBR group showed enhanced knee stability, evidenced by superior results in the Lachman test (χ2 = 13.49, P <0.01), objective IKDC-2000 (χ2 = 27.02, P = 0.002), and anterior instability test (χ2 = 9.46, P <0.01). Furthermore, DBR demonstrated superior clinical outcomes based on the Lysholm score (DBR: 89.57 ± 7.72, CASBR: 83.00 ± 12.71, ASBR: 83.21 ± 11.95; F = 10.452, P <0.01) and IKDC-2000 score (DBR: 90.95 ± 7.00, CASBR: 84.64 ± 12.68, ASBR: 83.63 ± 11.41; F = 11.78, P <0.01). Conclusion: For patients with ACL rupture, more ideal RTS rate and clinical outcomes were shown in the DBR group than in the ASBR and CASBR groups. Autograft status and quadriceps strength are postively related to RTS. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05400460).
Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading at fifteen year follow-up compared to single-bundle reconstruction

Seppänen, Arttu,Suomalainen, Piia,Kiekara, Tommi,Mäenpää, Heikki,Huhtala, Heini,Järvelä, Timo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06106-7

IF: 3.479

2024-02-11

International Orthopaedics

Abstract: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.

orthopedics
Single bundle vs double bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated with T2 mapping: A case series

Bobby N. Nelwan,Andri M.T. Lubis,Ismail H. Dilogo,Alberto L. Hanitya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967124s00399

IF: 2.6

2024-10-25

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 12, Issue 10_suppl3, October 2024. Introduction: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. The goal of this case series is to determine the superiority of either methods of ACL repair in terms of postoperative joint stability.Materials and methods: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.Results: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.Conclusion: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.

orthopedics,sport sciences
Single Bundle vs. Double Bundle ACL Reconstruction: Is there any difference in Joint Stability and Subjectivity?

Vinalola Manalu,Aldo Fransiskus Marsetio,Bobby Nelwan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967124s00437

IF: 2.6

2024-10-25

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 12, Issue 10_suppl3, October 2024. Introduction:Anterior cruciate ligament rupture (ACL) is one of the most frequent orthopedic sport injuries. Total rupture of ACL can be managed either with single bundle (SBACL) or double bundle (DBACL) reconstruction techniques. The aim of the study was to compare surgical outcomes with joint stability and subjectivity outcomes to analyze whether DBACL reconstruction is superior than SBACL.Methods:A cohort study was conducted in total ACL rupture patients between 2019-2022 at Gatot Soebroto Central Army Hospital. Fourty three male patients were included in this study, with 22 patients in SBACL group and 21 patients in DBACL group. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores were used to subjectively evaluate the function of the knee joint before the surgery and the postoperative follow-up at three and six months. Both groups were measured by Lachman test, Pivot test, and rolimeter for joint stability.Results:The results of patient reported outcomes using IKDC and Lysholm scores showed no significant difference in both groups before surgery and after three-month and six-month follow-ups (p=0.401; p=0.054; p=0.066 and p=0.345; p=0.217; p=0.082), although the mean value from each group had improved. Joint stability was measured using Lachman test (p=0.849; p=0.126; p=0.466), Pivot test (p=0.877; p=0.678; p=0.904), and rolimeter (p=0.395; p=0.566; p=0.455) also showed no significant differences.Conclusion:The study showed non superiority between single bundle ACL reconstruction and double bundle ACL reconstruction in joint stability and subjectivity.

orthopedics,sport sciences
Single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the medial collateral ligament-deficient knee

陈连旭,王虹虹

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2012.50.014

2012-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:It is controversial that single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with conservative treatment of medial col ateral ligament (MCL) in the treatment of combined injuries of the ACL and MCL. OBJECTIVE:To observe the biomechanical difference of single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction in the MCL-deficient knee. METHODS:Total y 16 adult pig knees were randomly divided into two groups. The ACL and MCL of the knee was transected, single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed in one group, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction in another group. The anterior tibial translation (ATT), internal rotation (IR) and external rotaion (ER) of the tibia were measured with Robot in states of intact knee, ACL and MCL transected, single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction at different knee flexion. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Compared with the intact knee, ATT, IR and ER were significantly increased in the ACL and MCL transected knee. After the ACL reconstruction in the MCL-deficient knee, ATT, IR and ER were significantly restored, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction was superior to single-bundle ACL reconstruction in restoring ER of the tibia. These findings indicate that double-bundle ACL reconstruction is superior to single-bundle ACL reconstruction at restoration of tibial ER stability in the MCL-deficient knee with redard to treatment of combined injuries of the ACL and MCL.
Double-bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique Has Advantages in Chondroprotection and Knee Laxity Control Compared with Single-Bundle Technique

Institute of Sports Medicine of Peking University,Zeng Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06350-5

2020-01-01

Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy

Abstract:To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (SBR) and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DBR) in patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, presenting no meniscus injury and no obvious preoperative cartilage degeneration. One hundred and three patients (38.6 ± 9.5 years) with a median follow-up of 151.6 months (range, 144–189 months) completed the retrospective study (SBR group: n = 51; DBR group: n = 52). Clinical outcomes were evaluated with physical examinations, KT-2000 anterior and posterior stability measurement with the knee in 30º of flexion, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Tegner score, Lysholm score; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (3.0 T) was performed, and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) cartilage degeneration grades were determined. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with cartilage degeneration. There were significant differences in the pre- and postoperative IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores between the SBR and DBR groups. The SBR group had over double the rate of positive pressure/rub patellar test results (SBR vs DBR, 43.1% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.011). The KT-2000, pivot-shift and Lachman test results were stratified and analyzed, and significant differences between the SBR and DBR groups were found (p < 0.05, respectively). The distribution of ICRS grades differed significantly between the groups at the last follow-up (p = 0.013). A multivariate analysis found that age and operation procedures were significant predictors of 0 and non-0 ICRS grades (odds ratio, 6.077 [95% CI 2.117–17.447] and 0.210 [95% CI 0.068–0.654], respectively) (p < 0.05). Both SBR and DBR achieved overall good long-term results. DBR had advantages in objective outcome measures and was superior in preventing the occurrence of cartilage degeneration. Age was identified as a preoperative risk factor for significant postoperative cartilage degeneration. III. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03984474
Progression of Osteoarthritis After Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trial

Jafri Hasan,Wintang Dayinta Tanaya Hutami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967124s00438

IF: 2.6

2024-10-25

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 12, Issue 10_suppl3, October 2024. Introduction:Recently, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction procedures are frequently performed both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques. Following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, the knee suffers from a high incidence of osteoarthritis (OA), which has been decreased by ACL reconstruction using DB and SB techniques. However, there is debate regarding the extent to which the DB and SB techniques work at preventing the progression of OA after an ACL reconstruction.Methods:The databases, which included Scopus, Embase, and PubMed, were searched up. A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing SB and DB ACL reconstruction and reporting the clinical outcomes for OA progression was included in the study. Only studies with a minimum of two years of follow-up and a ten-year time frame were included.Result:The evaluation was conducted on seven RCTs that satisfied the eligibility requirements. Overall, the studies indicate that there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of radiological OA progression between the DB group and the SB group.Conclusion:When it came to OA changes in ACL reconstruction, the DB technique was not better than the SB technique. This necessitates further research with longer follow-up periods, a larger sample size, and improved study designs.

orthopedics,sport sciences
Y-reconstruction could be better for ACL reconstruction in knee hyperextension versus double-bundle double-tunnel technique: a retrospective comparative study of 56 patients

Haobo Wu,Chiyuan Ma,Yan Xiong,Shigui Yan,Lidong Wu,Weigang Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2909-x

IF: 2.928

2018-01-01

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Abstract:Purpose To compare the clinical outcomes of double-bundle (DB) single-tibial tunnel technique and double-tunnel technique for ACL reconstruction in patients with knee hyperextension. Methods Defined as having constitutional hyperextension of greater than 10°, 56 patients with knee hyperextension who underwent ACL reconstruction were included in this study. To exclude concomitant lesions, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in all knees. 24 patients (Group A) were treated with the anatomic DB/single-tibial tunnel ACL reconstruction and 32 patients (Group B) were treated with DB/double-tibial tunnel ACL reconstruction, all the included patients had knee hyperextension. Clinical results were evaluated by the extension angle, ROM, IKDC 2000 subjective score, rotational stability, pivot-shift test and anterior–posterior translation test before the operation and at the end of follow-up. MRI scan of the knee positioned in full extension was performed after 6 months post-operation. Location of tibial tunnels and graft signal intensity were assessed according to the MRI. Results Postoperative extension deficit was detected in Group B, ROM of the injured knee in Group A was from extension angle 8.91 ± 3.16° to flexion angle 115.58 ± 10.53°. ROM of the injured knee in Group B was from extension angle − 2.13 ± 5.88° to flexion angle 119.25 ± 12.63°. Flexion angles of two groups did not show any significant difference ( p = 0.24), while extension angles were quite different ( p < 0.0001). Group A was slightly higher than Group B in IKDC subjective scores, but without significant difference (Group A 45.1 ± 6.5, Group B 42.4 ± 4.8, p = 0.09). There was no significant difference between two groups in pivot-shift test. Post-operational MRI showed more anterior located tibial tunnel and higher graft signal intensity in Group B when compared with Group A. One patient in the Group B had ligament retear, and required revision surgery. Conclusion DB/single-tibial tunnel technique restored the knee stability and overcame the shortcomings (such as knee extension deficit and graft impingement) of DB/double tibial tunnel, which might be more suitable for ACL reconstruction in knees with hyperextension. Level of evidence Level II to III.

Prospective randomized comparison of anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

[Compare the Clinical Results of Double-Bundle with Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction].

Comparison of Arthroscopic Single-tunnel Double-bundle and Single-tunnel Single-bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions

A Systematic Review of Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Comparison Between Single- and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions for Knee with Grade 2 Medial Collateral Ligament Injury.

Clinical Evaluation of Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedure Using Hamstring Tendon Grafts: a Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Study.

Clinical efficacy of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a retrospective study

[Effectiveness Comparison of Anatomical Single-Bundle and Over-the-top Single-Bundle Reconstruction of Anterior Cruciate Ligament].

[Effectiveness Comparison of Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Deep-Frozen Allografts].

Comparison Between Double- and Single-bundle Arthroscopic Anterior Cructiate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bonepatellar Tendon-bone Allograft

[Comparative Study on the Clinic Effects of Arthroscopic Reconstructions of Single-Bundle and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament].

[Comparison of Single and Double Bundle Isolate Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Autograft].

Comparison Between Single- and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with 6-to 8-Stranded Hamstring Autograft: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial

Which technique provides more benefits in return to sports and clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Double-bundle or single-bundle? A randomized controlled study

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading at fifteen year follow-up compared to single-bundle reconstruction

Single bundle vs double bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated with T2 mapping: A case series

Single Bundle vs. Double Bundle ACL Reconstruction: Is there any difference in Joint Stability and Subjectivity?

Single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the medial collateral ligament-deficient knee

Double-bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique Has Advantages in Chondroprotection and Knee Laxity Control Compared with Single-Bundle Technique

Progression of Osteoarthritis After Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trial

Y-reconstruction could be better for ACL reconstruction in knee hyperextension versus double-bundle double-tunnel technique: a retrospective comparative study of 56 patients