Prospective evaluation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a patient-based health-related survey: comparison of single-bundle and anatomical double-bundle techniques

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.

Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life and Clinical Evaluations in Patients with the Triad of Combined Knee Injuries

Combined knee injuries of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and medial meniscus were called "the unhappy triad" in the past. With recent advances in diagnostic technology, combined ACL, MCL, and lateral meniscus injuries are now known to be the predominant triad. We examined and verified the treatment outcomes of the triad of combined knee injuries from both patient-based subjective evaluation and objective assessments. We studied 49 knees (49 patients) with combined injuries of the ACL, MCL, and lateral meniscus. These cases were divided into those who underwent simultaneous ACL and MCL reconstruction (group A, 18 cases) and those who underwent ACL reconstruction only because MCL injury could be treated conservatively (group B, 31 cases). Clinical evaluation was conducted preoperative and 24 months or longer after surgery. The methods included patient-reported outcomes using Short Form-36, and conventional assessments using Lysholm's score, visual analogue scale (VAS), and quantitative measurement of knee instability using Telos SE. Compared with presurgical scores, the postsurgical Short Form-36 scores showed improvements in all eight subscales, all reaching the national standard values. Significant improvements were observed in the five subscales in group A and seven subscales in group B. Furthermore, significant improvements in Lysholm's score, VAS pain score, and quantitative knee instability were achieved in both groups. This study demonstrated successful clinical outcomes in patients with a triad of knee injuries who were treated with lateral meniscus repair or partial meniscectomy and either combined MCL/ACL reconstruction or ACL reconstruction alone.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare arthroscopic single bundle (SB) and double bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions in the light of all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis of this well-researched topic was performed and subgroup analyses of the medial portal (MP) technique and the transtibial technique (TT) were added as a new idea. The hypothesis was that the DB technique is superior to the SB technique also in subgroup analyses of the MP and TT techniques.

METHODS

Instructions of the PRISMA checklist were followed. Systematic literature search from electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane library and Scopus was performed to find RCTs that compared the SB and DB techniques. Nine outcomes were used to compare these two techniques. Each study was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and three subgroup analyses (minimum 2-years' follow-up, TT technique and MP technique) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies were included in this meta-analysis. When analysing all the included studies, the DB technique was superior to the SB technique in KT-1000/2000 evaluation (p < 0.01), IKDC subjective evaluation (p < 0.05), Lysholm scores (p = 0.02), pivot shift (p < 0.01) and IKDC objective evaluation (p = 0.02). Similar results were also found in the subgroup analyses of minimum 2-years' follow-up and the TT technique. However, there were no differences between the two techniques in a subgroup analysis of the MP technique.

CONCLUSION

Generally, DB ACL reconstruction leads to better restoration of knee laxity and subjective outcomes than SB ACL reconstruction. The subgroup analysis of the MP technique revealed that surgeons can achieve equally as good results with both techniques when femoral tunnels are drilled through the medial portal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Comparing post-operative pain between single bundle and double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective study

Background

In anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the clinical outcome and level of post-operative pain are important factors. To date there have been no studies evaluating differences in post-operative pain between single bundle and double bundle ACL reconstruction with a hamstring graft.

Hypothesis/purpose

We hypothesized that post-operative pain in single bundle ACL reconstruction would be less than in double bundle ACL reconstruction. This study was to compare post-operative pain between patients undergoing single bundle versus double bundle ACL reconstruction.

Study design

Cohort study.

Methods

This was a retrospective study comparing post-operative pain scores between single bundle and double bundle ACL reconstruction. Each patient was given our standard regimen of oral diclofenac (25 mg/tab) three times per day and paracetamol (500 mg/tab) six times per day for 1 day post-operatively. If the patient complained of moderate to severe pain (pain numeric rating scale (PNRS) > 3), 3 mg of morphine was injected intravenously every 3 h for 24 h and 1 mg of morphine as a rescue medication every 1 h for 24 h. PNRS and morphine consumption were recorded at 4-h intervals for 24 h.

Results

209 patients were included in this study of whom 102 and 107 patients received single bundle and double bundle ACL reconstruction, respectively. The average post-operative pain scores of the single bundle group were lower at all time points. Linear mixed effect regression analyses showed that the single bungle group had lower post-operative pain than the double bundle group after adjusting for confounders (beta = − 0.45; 95% CI = − 0.838, − 0.062) but there was no statistically significant difference between numbers of bundle ACL reconstruction with regard to morphine consumption.

Conclusion

Single bundle ACL reconstruction had significantly lower post-operative pain scores than double bundle ACL reconstruction.

Clinical relevance

Double bundle ACL reconstruction results in higher post-operative pain, which may slow the start of rehabilitation and reduce patient satisfaction. In middle-aged adult patients with low-demand activities, we suggest performing a single bundle ACL reconstruction.

Timeline for Maximal Subjective Outcome Improvement After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are one of the most common traumatic knee injuries experienced by athletes. Return to sport is considered the pinnacle endpoint among patients receiving ACL reconstruction. However, at the time of return to sport, patients may not be participating at their previous levels of function, as defined by clinical metrics.

PURPOSE

To establish when patients perceive maximal subjective medical improvement according to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted to identify studies that reported sequential PROMs up to a minimum of 2 years after ACL reconstruction. Pooled analysis was conducted for PROMs at follow-up points of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Clinically significant improvement was determined between pairs of intervals with the minimal clinically important difference.

RESULTS

This review contains 30 studies including 2253 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Clinically significant improvement in the KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) was seen up to 1 year after ACL reconstruction, but no clinical significance was noted from 1 to 2 years. Clinically significant improvement in the IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) and Lysholm questionnaires was seen up to 6 months postoperatively, but no clinical significance was noted beyond that.

CONCLUSION

After ACL reconstruction, maximal subjective medical improvement is established 1 year postoperatively, with no further perceived clinical improvement beyond this time point according to current PROMs. The KOOS may be a more responsive metric to subjective improvements in this patient cohort than other patient-reported outcomes, such as the IKDC and Lysholm.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

After ACL reconstruction, patients perceive interval subjective improvements until 1 year postoperatively.

Prospective analysis using a patient-based health-related scale shows lower functional scores after posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions as compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the treatment outcome of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction using the Medical Outcome Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), a patient-based quality of life (QOL) questionnaire comparing it with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent reconstruction at our center for PCL (n = 24) or ACL (n = 197) injury were studied. The patients were evaluated using SF-36, visual analogue scale (VAS) for knee pain, Lysholm scale, posterior or anterior tibial translation and range of motion (ROM) before surgery until 24 months after surgery. Results were compared.

RESULTS

In the ACL group, all evaluation methods showed significant improvement after surgery. In the PCL group, however, improvement was observed in only three of eight subscales of the SF-36, Lysholm score and posterior tibial translation after surgery. In intergroup comparison, the PCL group showed inferior performance in three subscales of the SF-36, Lysholm score and ROM for flexion compared with the ACL group.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcome of PCL reconstruction was inferior to that of ACL reconstruction both in patient-based and conventional doctor-based assessments. An improved surgical technique for PCL is required.

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

PURPOSE

Multiple meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, the highest available level of evidence, have been conducted to determine whether double-bundle (DB) or single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) provides superior clinical outcomes and knee stability; however, results are discordant. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing SB and DB ACL-R to discern the cause of the discordance and to determine which of these meta-analyses provides the current best available evidence.

METHODS

We evaluated available scientific support for SB as compared with DB ACL-R by systematically reviewing the literature for published meta-analyses. Data on patient clinical outcomes and knee stability (as measured by KT arthrometry and pivot-shift testing) were extracted. Meta-analysis quality was judged using the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses systems. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence.

RESULTS

Nine meta-analyses were included, of which 3 included Level I Evidence and 6 included both Level I and Level II Evidence. Most studies found significant differences favoring DB reconstruction on pivot-shift testing, KT arthrometry measurement of anterior tibial translation, and International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading. Most studies detected no significant differences between the 2 techniques in subjective outcome scores (Tegner, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective), graft failure, or complications. Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores varied, with 2 studies exhibiting major flaws (Oxman-Guyatt score <3). After application of the Jadad decision algorithm, 3 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected, with each concluding that DB ACL-R provided significantly better knee stability (by KT arthrometry and pivot-shift testing) than SB ACL-R but no advantages in clinical outcomes or risk of graft failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The current best available evidence suggests that DB ACL-R provides better postoperative knee stability than SB ACL-R, whereas clinical outcomes and risk of graft failure are similar between techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Placement of Double Tunnels in ACL Reconstruction Using Bony Landmarks Versus Existing Footprint Remnant: A Prospective Clinical Study With 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLR) are becoming controversial. One of the main reasons for the controversy is the techniques for bone tunnel placement. The common technique to place the bone tunnels is to use bony landmarks, while a new approach uses footprint remnants.

PURPOSE

To investigate if placement of double tunnels using bony landmarks produces the same clinical results as that of using existing footprint remnants.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 72 male patients were randomly divided into 2 groups of 36 patients each: (A) DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the footprint remnant procedure (EF group) and (B) DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the bony landmark procedure (BL group). All patients were evaluated before and after surgery. Outcomes were measured by KT-2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference, pivot-shift test, and Tegner, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. Second-look arthroscopic evaluations were performed in 59 cases (28 and 31 cases in the EF and BL groups, respectively).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 36.9±4.8 months. Postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography scans showed that bone sockets were variable on both femoral and tibial sides in the EF group and almost consistent in the BL group. All of the evaluation indexes were significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. There were no revision cases in the EF group and 2 in the BL group. The EF group showed a faster range of motion (ROM) recovery (at 0° to 120°) than did the BL group. At final follow-up, there was no significant difference between the EF and BL groups in Tegner score (5.88±1.39 vs 5.16±1.76; P=.058) or pivot-shift test (34 vs 32; P=.067). The EF group had a larger proportion of patients with IKDC grade A (normal) (33 vs 24; P<.020), smaller side-to-side difference (0.68±0.38 mm vs 1.23±0.61 mm; P<.001), higher Lysholm score (91.29±4.90 vs 88.71±5.09; P=.032), and better second-look arthroscopic evaluations for graft quality in the anteromedial (P=.034), posterolateral (P=.015), and combined bundles (P=.029) compared with the BL group.

CONCLUSION

Although both techniques provided satisfactory clinical results, DB-ACLR using the existing footprint remnant for tunnel placement showed better functional results with respect to faster ROM recovery, higher subjective outcome scores, and better arthroscopic second-look with no revision cases.

Femoral tunnel position on conventional magnetic resonance imaging after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young men: transtibial technique versus anteromedial portal technique

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with a free Achilles tendon allograft using either a transtibial or an anteromedial portal technique and then to quantify the difference in femoral tunnel position between these 2 approaches. This assessment was to be performed with a new method using conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a digital imaging system.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized comparative study, 53 young male patients with ACL rupture underwent ACL reconstruction with the transtibial technique (group 1) or the anteromedial portal technique (group 2). We assessed clinical outcomes with the Lachman test, pivot shift test, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) classification, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and single leg hop (SLH) test. Radiologic assessments included the position of the femoral tunnel aperture and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) index on conventional MRI and the side-to-side difference (SSD) on stress radiographs.

RESULTS

Sixty-one participants had follow-up. The mean follow-up period was 30.2 months. At the last follow-up, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in results from the Lachman test, pivot shift test, IKDC classification, Tegner activity scale, and SLH test. The Lysholm score and SSD results in group 2 were superior to those in group 1 (P < .001). The femoral tunnel aperture was positioned more posteriorly in group 2 than in group 1 (P < .001). Changes in the PCL index were greater in group 1 than in group 2 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The position of the femoral tunnel aperture created with the anteromedial portal technique was more posterior than that made with the transtibial technique. Knees reconstructed with the anteromedial portal technique were more stable in Telos testing, and were 3 points higher on the Lysholm score. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the Tegner activity scale or IKDC classification between the 2 groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level I, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Dynamic evaluation of pivot-shift kinematics in physeal-sparing pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques

BACKGROUND

Conventional transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques in skeletally immature patients have been questioned because of potential physeal injuries. Consequently, multiple alternative reconstruction options have been described to restore stability while sparing the physes in the skeletally immature patient.

HYPOTHESIS

All pediatric reconstruction techniques will restore knee stability to intact levels, and the knee stability index (KSI) will discriminate stability patterns between reconstruction techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A novel mechanical pivot-shift device (MPSD) that consistently applies dynamic loads to cadaveric knees was used to study the effect of different physeal-sparing ACL reconstruction techniques on knee stability. Six adult cadaveric fresh-frozen knees were used. All knees were tested with 3 physeal-sparing reconstruction techniques: all epiphyseal (AE), transtibial over the top (TT), and iliotibial band (ITB). The MPSD was used to consistently perform a simulated pivot-shift maneuver. Tibial anterior displacement (AD), internal rotation (IR), posterior translational velocity (PTV), and external rotational velocity (ERV) were recorded using an Optotrak navigation system. The KSI (score range, 0-100; 0 = intact knee) was quantified using a regression analysis of AD, IR, PTV, and ERV. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and logistic regression were used for comparison of kinematics and derivation of KSI coefficients, respectively.

RESULTS

ACL deficiency resulted in an increase of 20% to 115% in all primary stability measures tested compared with the ACL-intact state. All reconstructions resulted in a decrease in ADmax and IRmax as well as PTVmax and ERVmax to within intact ranges, indicating that all reconstructions do improve stability compared with the ACL-deficient state. The ITB reconstruction overconstrained AD and IR by 38% and 52%, respectively. The mean (±SD) KSI for the ACL-deficient state was 61.7 ± 22.2 (range, 47-100), while the ITB reconstruction had a mean KSI of 0.82 ± 24.0 (range, -24 to 35), the TT reconstruction had a mean KSI of 13.3 ± 8.9 (range, 0.3-23), and the AE reconstruction had a mean KSI of -4.0 ± 15.2 (range, -24 to 14). The KSI was not significantly different between reconstructions, and all were significantly lower than the ACL-deficient state (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Although all reconstruction techniques tested were able to partially stabilize an ACL-deficient knee, the AE reconstruction was most effective in restoring native knee kinematics under dynamic loading conditions that mimic the pivot-shift test.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study provides orthopaedic surgeons with objective dynamic rotational data on the ability of physeal-sparing ACL reconstructions to better determine the ideal technique for ACL construction in skeletally immature patients.

Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which arthroscopic single-bundle was compared with double-bundle for ACL reconstruction. The search strategy followed the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. The outcomes of these studies were analysed in terms of graft failures, Lysholm score, negative pivot-shift test, KT1000 arthrometer measurements, knee extensor and flexor peak torques, knee extension and flexion deficit, and subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) final score. Methodological quality was assessed and data were extracted independently. Standard mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated by a fixed effects or random effects model. Heterogeneity across the studies was assessed with the I-square and chi-square statistic. Forest plots were also generated.

RESULTS

We identified 17 RCTs comprising 1,381 patients who were treated by arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The results of meta-analysis of these studies showed that arthroscopic double-bundle reconstruction was associated with a lower risk of graft failures (P=0.002) and a lower rate of positive pivot-shift test (P<0.0001). Compared with single-bundle reconstruction, double-bundle reconstruction had a lower KT1000 arthrometer measurement (P<0.00001), a lower knee extension deficit (P=0.006) and a higher subjective IKDC score (P=0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between single-bundle and double-bundle reconstruction in Lysholm score (P=0.91), knee extensor peak torques (P=0.97), knee flexor peak torques (P=0.96), knee flexion deficit (P=0.30) and objective IKDC score (P=0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the more favourable outcomes of graft failures, knee joint stability and knee joint function in double-bundle reconstruction, we concluded that arthroscopic double-bundle reconstruction should be considered as the primary treatment in ACL reconstruction.