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

Double-bundle ACL combined with ALL reconstruction for patients at high risk of ACL failure: clinical and radiological results

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) improved clinical and radiological outcomes in patients at high risk of ACL failure. The primary outcome was graft failure, and secondary outcomes included knee stability and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-two patients who underwent DB ACLR combined with ALLR were included in this retrospective cohort study. Preoperative risk factors, including femorotibial angle (FTA), lateral tibial slope (LTS), medial tibial slope (MTS), and meniscal tears, were assessed using X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The grade of post-operative pivot shift, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score were used to assess clinical outcomes. The minimum follow up duration was 2 years.

RESULTS

The cohort (mean age, 26.1 ± 9.4 years; 51.9% male) had a mean follow-up duration of 28.9 ± 3.4 months. Preoperatively, 57.8% had lateral meniscus (LM) tears, and 61.0% had a grade 2-3 pivot shift. Postoperatively, no graft failures or revision cases occurred during follow-up. Approximately 90.4% of the patients exhibited a negative pivot shift (p < 0.001), with Lysholm and Tegner activity scores of 92.5 ± 6.1 and 5.1 ± 2.0. The medial meniscus (MM) tear group had a significantly smaller FTA than the intact group (p = 0.043). No significant differences in PROMs were found between the LM tear and intact LM groups or between the high and low MTS or LTS groups (p = n.s.).

CONCLUSION

DB ACLR combined with ALLR had satisfactory clinical outcomes in patients at high risk of ACL failure, with no graft failures observed during a mean follow-up duration of 2.4 years. The technique effectively reduced the postoperative pivot shift, regardless of preoperative risk factors.

STUDY DESIGN

Level IV, retrospective therapeutic case-series.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

ethical approval number, 202300134B0; ethical committee, the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Medical Foundation.

Femoral Tunnel Position in Anatomical Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction is not Affected by Blumensaat's Line Morphology

The aim of this study was to reveal the influence of the morphological variations of the Blumensaat's line on anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) femoral tunnel position in anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.Fifty-three subjects undergoing anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction were included (29 female, 24 male; median age 27.4 years; range: 14-50 years). Using an inside-out transportal technique, the PL tunnel position was made on a line drawn vertically from the bottommost point of the lateral condyle at 90 degrees of knee flexion, spanning a distance of 5 to 8 mm, to the edge of the joint cartilage. AM tunnel position was made 2 mm distal to the PL tunnel position. Following Iriuchishima's classification, the morphology of the Blumensaat's line was classified into straight and hill (large and small) types. Femoral tunnel position was determined using the quadrant method. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare straight and hill type knees according to AM and PL femoral tunnel position.There were 18 straight and 35 hill type knees (13 small and 22 large hill). AM and PL femoral tunnel position in straight type knees were 21.7 ± 7.0 and 33.6 ± 10.5% in the shallow-deep direction, and 42.1 ± 11.1 and 72.1 ± 8.5% in the high-low direction, respectively. In hill type knees, AM and PL femoral tunnel position were 21.3 ± 5.8 and 36.9 ± 7.1% in the shallow-deep direction, and 44.6 ± 10.7 and 72.1 ± 9.7% in the high-low direction, respectively. No significant difference in AM or PL femoral tunnel position was detected between straight and hill type knees.AM and PL femoral tunnel position in anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction was not affected by the morphological variations of the Blumensaat's line. Surgeons do not need to consider Blumensaat's line morphology if AM and PL femoral tunnel position is targeted at the bottommost point of the lateral condyle. This was a level of evidence III 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

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to either the SB group (n = 78) or the DB group (n = 75). Evaluation included clinical testing, subjective assessments, functional testing, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective grading. Surgical techniques were anatomic, and the rehabilitation protocol was standardized.

RESULTS

At 15-year follow-up, information was available on 100 patients (65%), of whom 55 (36%) were accepted in the final statistical analysis. There were almost three times as many graft failures in the SB group, but the result wasn´t statistically significant. Subjective assessments, knee stability (KT -1000 and pivot shift), range of motion (ROM), and functional one leg hop test showed no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, DB ACL reconstruction resulted in better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

At the 15-year follow-up, double-bundle surgery resulted in significantly better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading compared to single-bundle surgery.

The increased lateral tibial slope may result in inferior long-term clinical outcome after DB-ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

To determine if there is a correlation between lateral tibial slope and long-term clinical results in patients who underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients that received double-bundle ACL reconstruction at a single institution by a single surgeon from January 2011 to December 2014. All the magnetic resonance imaging were reviewed and lateral tibial slopes (LTS) were recorded by an experienced surgeon and rechecked by the other two authors of this study that specialized in orthopedic knee surgery. The relationship between PROMs measurement and lateral tibial slope were analyzed. The patients were then separated into two groups (LTS > 7.4° and < 7.4°) according to the previous study.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were enrolled in this study. All enrolled patients were followed for at least 8 years. The PROMS result were negatively correlated with the lateral tibial slope (p values all < 0.001). The patients with high lateral tibial slope had significantly lower PROMS values (Lysholm 94.26 ± 5.61 vs 80.15 ± 8.28, p = 0.013; IKDC 82.99 ± 4.55 vs 70.09 ± 7.15, p = 0.003; Tegner 9.32 ± 0.95 vs 6.85 ± 1.99, p < 0.001). Finally, the LTS cutoff value between patients with "Good" and "Fair" Lysholm score in our study was 7.55 degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high lateral tibial slope may result in inferior long-term subjective outcomes. The using of double-bundle ACL reconstruction along cannot overcome the negative impact caused by steep lateral tibial slope. A lateral tibial slope of 7.55° may be used as a cut-off for a good clinical outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Anatomic Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle Reconstructions Yield Similar Outcomes Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes of arthroscopic single-bundle (SB) versus anatomic double-bundle (ADB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in adults through a synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We hypothesized that SB and ADB methods would lead to similar outcomes after reconstruction of ACL rupture.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklist guided our reporting. To identify RCTs that compared SB and ADB reconstructions, a thorough literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. The methodologic quality of each included study was independently assessed by 2 authors using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The Anatomic ACL Reconstruction Scoring Checklist (AARSC) was used to screen the eligibility of each study's operative approaches. Twelve clinical outcomes were investigated through pooled analyses conducted using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis synthesized 13 RCTs comparing postoperative outcomes between ADB and SB reconstructions of ACLs. After a minimum follow-up of 12 months, ADB and SB technique resulted in similar subjective clinical outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score sports subscale. Similarly, no statistically significant outcomes were found for objective outcomes such as International Knee Documentation Committee objective grade, pivot-shift test, Lachman test, side-to-side difference, extension deficit, flexion deficit, and osteoarthritis change. However, patients who underwent SB reconstruction had significantly greater complication rates than those that underwent ADB reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

When an ACLR approach meets a minimal total AARSC score of 8, ADB and SB techniques may result in similar subjective and objective outcomes, but the ADB technique may lead to lower complication rates following surgery. We recommend that surgeons favor ADB ACLR, as guided by the AARSC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.

Trends of Publications on Single- and Double-Bundle ACL Reconstructions over the Last 20 Years: A Bibliometric Analysis of the PubMed Literature

Purpose

To improve the clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), there have been attempts to reproduce anatomic reconstruction by modifying the single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques. Although DB ACLR restores better rotational control compared to SB ACLR, it is still debatable whether there are higher clinical outcomes in favor of DB ACLR. We aimed to study the trends of publications on SB and DB ACLR techniques over the last 20 years.

Methods

For this bibliometric study, we performed a PubMed search on 31/05/2022 with a well-defined search strategy. The articles were downloaded into Excel software, and citations were determined from the iCite website for PubMed. The analysis was performed using SPSS software version 28.0.1. Data mining was performed using Orange software, Mac version 3.32.0, from the titles of all articles and each group of SB and DB ACLR. The output is presented as word clouds.

Results

A total of 10,530 publications were identified, of which 9699 publications (92.1%) pertained to SB-ACLR and 831 publications (7.9%) to DB-ACLR. There was a steady increase in the publications on SB-ACLR until 2012, followed by a steep increase that peaked in 2021. The highest number of publications on DB-ACLR was in 2012 (n = 76; 9.1%). The mean citations per year for SB-ACLR and DB-ACLR were 2.87 ± 4.31 and 2.74 ± 3.17, respectively. The most prolific journals publishing on this topic were Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, American Journal of Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy. The top three articles that received the maximum number of citations were from Japanese authors.

Conclusion

The number of publications related to SB-ACLR was significantly higher than that related to DB-ACLR in the last 20 years. The publications related to DB-ACLR have decreased in the recent past, after reaching a peak in 2012. The citations per year of SB-ACLR and DB-ACLR were similar.

Risk Factors for Revision or Rerupture After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The rerupture or need for revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a serious complication. Preventive strategies that target the early identification of risk factors are important to reduce the incidence of additional surgery.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate risk factors for revision or rerupture after ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to November 2021 and updated in January 2022. Quantitative, original studies reporting potential adjusted risk factors were included. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for potential risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 71 studies across 13 countries with a total sample size of 629,120 met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen factors were associated with an increase in the risk of revision or rerupture after ACLR: male sex (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.41), younger age (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), lower body mass index (BMI) (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06), family history (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.50-4.08), White race (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08-1.60), higher posterolateral tibial slope (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.26), preoperative high-grade anterior knee laxity (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.46-3.64), higher baseline Marx activity level (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13), return to a high activity level/sport (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.15-3.57), an ACLR within less than a year after injury (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.81-2.32), a concomitant medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.31-2.00), an anteromedial portal or transportal technique (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.51), hamstring tendon (HT) autografts (vs bone-patellar tendon-bone [BPTB] autografts) (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.40-1.82), allografts (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.65-4.19), and smaller graft diameter (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.38). The other factors failed to show an association with an increased risk of revision or rerupture after ACLR.

CONCLUSION

Male sex, younger age, lower BMI, family history, White race, higher posterolateral tibial slope, preoperative high-grade anterior knee laxity, higher baseline Marx activity level, return to a high activity level/sport, an ACLR within less than a year from injury, a concomitant MCL injury, an anteromedial portal or transportal technique, HT autografts (vs BPTB autografts), allografts, and smaller graft diameter may increase the risk of revision or rerupture after ACLR. Raising awareness and implementing effective preventions/interventions for risk factors are priorities for clinical practitioners to reduce the incidence of revision or rerupture after ACLR.

Rotational Stability of the Knee in a Comparative Study of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle Techniques

BACKGROUND

The purpsose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical outcomes of patients who underwent ACL reconstruction either with the DB or SB technique. We hypothesized that the DB technique would provide better rotation control of the knee following ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

The study included seventy-five participants (26 DB, 22 SB, and 27 healthy volunteers). Only cases with at least one year of postoperative follow-up were included. The participants performed three different demand tasks: walk task, walk and change direction, and stair descent and change direction, which was tracked using a three-dimensional 4-camera optoelectronic system. The following kinematic data were analyzed: tibial rotation amplitude and maximal internal and external rotation. Knees with ACL reconstruction were compared to contralateral knees with intact ACL and healthy knees. Clinical outcomes were determined using the subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire and a manual arthrometer (KT 1000).

RESULTS

Both surgical groups exhibited similar clinical outcomes (mean subjective IKDC 91 SB vs. 90 DB, P=0.815; KT 1000 difference: 2mm in both groups, P=0.772). The vertical component of the ground force reaction revealed no differences between the surgical and control groups (P>0.05). Tibial rotation amplitude and maximal internal and external rotation were similar between the control, SB, and DB groups in all three different demand tasks (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

ACL reconstruction using either the SB or DB technique can restore rotational control to the level of a healthy knee. No clinical or functional differences were found between the SB and DB surgical options.