ACL reconstruction in sports active people: transtibial DB technique with ST/G vs. transtibial SB technique with BPTB: preliminary results

Optimal Graft Choice in Athletic Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: Review and Clinical Insights

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common sporting-related knee injury with a potentially detrimental impact on the athlete’s career, yet there is no formal consensus on the optimal graft choice for reconstructing the ruptured ACL in this specific population. Options for reconstruction include autograft, allograft, and artificial grafts. However, each has associated failure risk and donor site morbidity. Our operational definition of the athlete is a skeletally mature individual participating in high level activity with the expectation to return to pre-injury level of activity. The athlete has unique injury characteristics, post-operative expectations, and graft demands that differ to the general population. Long-term outcomes are of particular importance given on-going mechanical demands on the reconstructed knee. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to consolidate current literature on the various ACL reconstruction graft options, with a focus on the optimal graft for returning the athlete to activity with the lowest rate of re-injury.

Restoring rotational stability following anterior cruciate ligament surgery: single-bundle reconstruction combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis versus double-bundle reconstruction

Aim: To compare the outcomes of patients who underwent single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) with the outcomes of those who underwent double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction. Methods: 16 patients who underwent ACL hamstring SB reconstruction combined with LET (Coker-Arnold modification of the MacIntosh procedure) were retrospectively compared with 20 patients who underwent hamstring DB reconstruction at an average follow-up of 6.2 years. Assessment included Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores, objective examination and instrumented laxity test. Results: No complications were reported. Mean Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores significantly increased from preoperatively (p < 0.05). No differences were reported between the two groups with regard to point scales, anterior tibial translation and pivot-shift test (p = not significant). Conclusions: Both DB ACL reconstruction and combined LET and autologous hamstring SB ACL reconstruction are effective at providing satisfying functional outcomes and restoring rotational stability.

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.

Is 12 months enough to reach function after athletes' ACL reconstruction: a prospective longitudinal study

CONTEXT

Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury is disabling in several sports because it causes knee instability and functional deficit. Usually, surgical treatments produce the best functional outcomes, however, sometimes they are not always able to fully restore stability and function.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate postural balance, muscle strength, and functional performance of young athletes with an ACL injury before and after ACL reconstruction.

DESIGN

This was a longitudinal observational prospective study.

METHOD

74 athletes, 60 men, and 14 women, aged between 16 and 45, divided into two groups: the Group-Lesion of ACL with 34 athletes (24.1 years) and the Group-Control with 40 athletes without ACL lesion (27.7 years old). All volunteers performed posturography, isokinetic dynamometry, and the Hop-Test. The ACL-Group was evaluated before and 12 months after the reconstruction and the control group was evaluated once.

RESULTS

The Postoperative ACL Group presented greater limb symmetry, 0.96 (± 0.12), than the preoperative ACL Group, 0.87 (± 0.17), p < 0.01 in the Hop-Test. In the posturography, the displacement area was smaller in the postoperative ACL Group, 19.85 (± 5.74), compared to the preoperative ACL Group, 24.20 (± 8.97), p < 0.01. In isokinetic dynamometry the torque peak was greater in the postoperative ACL Group, 0.91 (± 0.14), than in the preoperative ACL Group, 0.74 (± 0.15), p < 0.01.

CONCLUSION

The functional outcomes increased in ACL reconstruction athletes after 12 months, but not at the same level as in the Control Group. The result indicates an incomplete functional recovery, adaptive changes in postural control after injury, reconstruction, and return to sport.

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.

Subjective assessment reported by patients shows differences between single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, systematic review and meta-analysis

To determine the functional recovery, active reincorporation, and anteroposterior and rotational stability of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using arthroscopy techniques with simple-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB). The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier platform), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley platform), Web of Science, and CINAHL. Level I and II studies involving anterior cruciate ligament arthroscopy were included in the search. Records were screened by title and abstract and assessed the risk of bias of selected studies. Meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 software were conducted on the following outcomes: knee functionality, objective measurements of knee stability, rotational knee stability and knee anterior stability, sports reincorporation, and subjective assessments. Twenty-four studies of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis (1707 patients) for Lysholm score, Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner score, KT-1000/2000, Lachman test, Objective IKDC score, and Pivot-Shift test. A return to pre-injury level showed a significant decrease in the Lysholm score (mean difference, - 0.99; 95% CI - 1.71 to - 0.40; P = 0.007) and Tegner score (mean difference, - 0.07; 95% CI, - 0.13 to - 0.01; P = 0.02) at DB reconstruction, similar to the knee functionality outcome of the subjective IKDC score (mean difference - 1.42; 95% CI - 2.46 to - 0.38; P = 0.007). There is no clear or significant difference in clinical stability and knee function or in sports incorporation with the true difference occurring in the subjective assessment.

Anterolateral ligament reconstruction as an augmented procedure for double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores rotational stability: Quantitative evaluation of the pivot shift test using an inertial sensor

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical function of the anterolateral structures (ALS) of the knee regarding rotational stability, and to attempt to verify the effectiveness of anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction concomitant with double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction by quantifying the pivot shift test (PST) using an inertial sensor.

METHODS

Six knees of the fresh-frozen cadavers were evaluated during the following phases: (1) [Intact]; (2) ACL-deficient [ACL-D]; (3) ACL-reconstructed [ACL-R]; (4) ACL-reconstructed + ALS-deficient [ACL-R + ALS-D]; and (5) combined ACL and ALL reconstructed [ACL-R + ALL-R]. We evaluated knee rotational instability during each phase using the PST. We used an inertial sensor to calculate tibial external rotational angular velocity (ERAV) and tibial acceleration. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance; statistical significance was accepted as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Relative to [Intact], [ACL-D] caused a significant increase in ERAV and acceleration. However, there was no difference in these parameters between [ACL-R] and [Intact]. [ACL-R + ALS-D] increased ERAV significantly compared with [ACL-R], and there was a significant difference between ERAV during [ACL-R + ALS-D] and [Intact]. However, ERAV was significantly reduced during [ACL-R + ALL-R] compared with [ACL-R + ALS-D], and there was no significant difference in ERAV or acceleration between [ACL-R + ALL-R] and [Intact].

CONCLUSIONS

ALS controlled rotational instability in cooperation with the ACL in a cadaveric model. In cases of combined injury of ACL and ALS, concomitant ACL and ALL reconstruction may restore knee stability comparable with the intact state.

Network meta-analysis of knee outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with various types of tendon grafts

PURPOSE

Various grafts were selected for restoring knee stability and regaining pre-injury activity levels after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. This review aimed to compare the short-term knee outcomes of different tendon grafts for primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

Databases of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were retrieved for identifying the published RCT comparing the short-term (≤ 2 years) knee outcomes of different tendon grafts for ACLR. The main outcomes include the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective scores, side-to-side difference on knee laxity, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, Lysholm score, Tegner score, all recorded complications and graft re-ruptures.

RESULTS

A total of 32 trials involving 2962 patients and 17 grafts were included. Superior IKDC subjective score was found for quadriceps tendon autograft (QTB) when compared with autografts including bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), four-strand hamstring tendon (4S-HT), and double-bundle HT. The 4S-HT autograft was associated with poorer anteroposterior and rotational knee stability than the BPTB autograft. Artificial ligament also was found to provide lower knee stability compared with the autografts including the BPTB, patellar tendon, 4S-HT, 4S-HT with preserved tibial insertion, 6S-HT, and four-strand semitendinosus tendon. Additionally, the BPTB allograft showed a statistically higher knee laxity than 6S-HT allograft, while no difference was found between the genuine autografts and non-irradiated allografts.

CONCLUSIONS

QTB was recommended to be used even over the BPTB and 4S-HT autografts. BPTB autograft was more effective on restoring the knee stability than 4S-HT autograft. Non-irradiated allografts could be safely used as alternatives to autografts. However, artificial ligaments were not recommended for primary ACLR for significantly increased risk of knee laxity.

Return to sports and re-rupture rate following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in amateur sportsman: long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate patient satisfaction, the return-to-sport rate and activity level at a long-term follow-up in a large cohort of amateur sportsmen who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A total of 218 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2011, were successfully recontacted and retrospectively reviewed at an average follow-up of 10.5 years (range, 7 to 14 years). All surgeries were performed by one single surgeon. All of them underwent primary ACL reconstruction with autogenous hamstring tendon grafts. Assessment included Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form, Tegner activity level. Patients were also asked what kind of injury they sustained (either direct or indirect trauma), what kind of sport they were performing when they got injured, at what time they did return to sports and which sport they practised before and after surgery.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients underwent re-rupture. In 11 cases, this was due to a new trauma occurring at an average time of 22.9 (SD 23.8) months following primary surgery. In 3 cases rupture occurred during rehabilitation period. Mean postoperative KOOS score was 88.5 (SD 8.5), while mean IKDC subjective score was 87.5 (SD 10.9). At the time of follow-up, most patients (214 subjects, 98%) were participating in sport. 156 subjects returned to pre-injury level (71.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study reported long-term favourable subjective outcomes in amateur sportsman following ACL reconstruction, with a low re-rupture rate and a high percentage of subjects (93.6%) returning to sports participation 12 months after surgery. Most patients (71.6%) were able to return to their preprimary level of activity and sport. Younger age at the time of ACL reconstruction positively affected return to sports; however, younger patients were significantly more likely than older patients to undergo re-rupture.

Anterior cruciate ligament injury risk factors in football

INTRODUCTION

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) lesion represents one of the most dramatic injuries in a football (soccer) player's career. There are many injury risk factors related to intrinsic (non-modifiable) and/or extrinsic (modifiable) factors of ACL injury.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Research of the studies was conducted until September 2018 without publication data limitation or language restriction on the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ISI, EXCERPTA.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

To date, evidence from the literature suggests that the risk of ACL injury is multifactorial and involves biomechanical, anatomical, hormonal, and neuromuscular factors. Despite this relative complexity, the mechanisms of injury are well known and rationally classified into two categories: mechanisms of injury based on contact or on non-contact with another player, with the non-contact injury mechanisms clearly prevailing over the mechanisms of contact injury. One of the most frequent biomechanical risk factors, associated with ACL non-contact injury, is represented by the valgus knee in the pivoting and cutting movements and in the landing phase after jumping. Gender-related risk factors show female populations to have a higher predisposition to ACL injury than males However, there are still some theoretical and practical aspects that need further investigation such as; genetic risks together with the role of estrogen and progesterone receptors in female populations, and the in-vivo interaction shoe-playing surface. In particular, the genetic risk factors of ACL lesion seem to be an interesting and promising field of investigation, where considerable progress has still to be made.

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative review provides an insight into the risk factors of ACL injury that could be used by practitioners for preventing injury in football (soccer).

Double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Failure rate and patients-reported outcomes at 4-11 years of follow up

Background

Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that single bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (SB-ACLr), which represents the gold standard for the management of ACL lesions, is not sufficient to completely restore the rotational stability and resistance to valgus stress of the knee.

Purpose

To evaluate the failure rate and patients reported outcomes at a long-term follow-up of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLr).

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Materials and methods

The database of arthroscopic DB-ACLr procedures performed from 2006 to 2015 at our Institution was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were screened for eligibility according to the following inclusion criteria: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) lesion, positive anterior drawer test and/or Lachman test; age ≤ 45 years at the time of surgery; DB-ACLr with autologous hamstrings, minimum follow up of 24 months. Patients were excluded if they presented associated lesions of the knee preoperatively or at the time of surgery, expect for meniscal lesions, or in case of inability to complete clinical questionnaires. Clinical outcomes were assessed at a mean follow up of 95.4 ± 21.9 months (range 51-129 months; median 98 months) using the Tegner-Lysholm score and the IKDC subjective score. Failures were defined as Tegner-Lysholm score ≤65 points, and were confirmed with MRI.

Results

58 (81.7%) male and 13 (18.3%) female patients (mean age 29.7 ± 7.8 years) were included in the study. 2 (2.8%, 95% CI 0.3-9.8%) patients had a failure of DB-ACLr both occurred after a sports trauma. The IKDC subjective score was statically better in patients younger than 30 years. Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC subjective score were statistically better in professional athletes and in patients with isolated medial or lateral meniscus lesion instead of combined medial and lateral meniscus lesion.

Conclusion

DB-ACLr technique provides excellent clinical results at a long term follow-up. Low failure rate and high percentage of return to sports participation at the same pre-injury level was found in our cohort of patients.

A systematic review of single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to apply the anatomic ACL reconstruction scoring checklist (AARSC) and to evaluate the degree to which clinical studies comparing single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstructions are anatomic.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search was performed using the databases PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Studies published from January 1995 to January 2014 comparing SB and DB ACL reconstructions with clinical outcome measurements were included. The items from the AARSC were recorded for both the SB and DB groups in each study.

RESULTS

Eight-thousand nine-hundred and ninety-four studies were analysed, 77 were included. Randomized clinical trials (29; 38%) and prospective comparative studies (29; 38%) were the most frequent study type. Most studies were published in 2011 (19; 25%). The most commonly reported items for both SB and DB groups were as follows: graft type (152; 99%), femoral and tibial fixation method (149; 97% respectively), knee flexion angle during graft tensioning (124; 8%) and placement of the tibial tunnel at the ACL insertion site (101; 66%). The highest level of documentation used for ACL tunnel position for both groups was often one dimensional, e.g. drawing, operative notes or o'clock reference. The DB reconstruction was in general more thoroughly reported. The means for the AARSC were 6.9 ± 2.8 for the SB group and 8.3 ± 2.8 for the DB group. Both means were below a proposed required minimum score of 10 for anatomic ACL reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial underreporting of surgical data for both the SB and DB groups in clinical studies. This underreporting creates difficulties when analysing, comparing and pooling results of scientific studies on this subject.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Patellar Tendon, Hamstring Tendon, and Double-Bundle ACL Reconstructions: Patient-Reported and Clinical Outcomes at a Minimal 2-Year Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3 anatomically positioned autografts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, by measuring patient-reported disease-specific quality of life at 2 years postoperatively.

DESIGN

Double-blinded, randomized clinical trial with intraoperative computer-generated treatment allocation. Patients and an independent trained evaluator were blinded.

SETTING

University-based orthopedic referral practice.

PATIENTS

Three hundred thirty patients (14-50 years; 183 male patients) with isolated ACL deficiency were equally randomized to: (1) patellar tendon, PT: 28.7 years (SD = 9.7); (2) quadruple-stranded hamstring tendon, HT: 28.5 years (SD = 9.9); and (3) double bundle using HT, DB: 28.3 years (SD = 9.8); 322 patients completed 2-year follow-up.

INTERVENTION

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using PT, HT, or DB autografts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measured at baseline, 1 and 2 years postoperatively-primary: anterior cruciate ligament quality-of-life scores; secondary: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, KT-1000 arthrometer, pivot shift, range of motion, Tegner activity, Cincinnati Occupational Scale, and single-leg hop. Proportions of correct graft type guesses by the patients and evaluator assessed blinding effectiveness.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were not different. Anterior cruciate ligament quality-of-life scores increased over time for all groups (P = 0.001) but were not different at 2 years (P = 0.591): PT = 84.6 (SD = 16.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.4-87.8), HT = 82.5 (SD = 17.7, 95% CI = 79.2-85.9), and DB = 82.4 (SD = 17.5, 95% CI = 79.1-85.7). Two-year KT-1000 side-to-side differences (PT = 1.86 mm; HT = 2.97 mm; DB = 2.65 mm) were statistically significant between PT-HT (P = 0.002) and PT-DB (P = 0.044). The remaining secondary outcomes were not statistically different. Correct graft type guesses occurred 51% of the time for patients and 46% for the evaluator.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year disease-specific quality-of-life outcome was not different between the ACL reconstruction techniques. The PT reconstructions had significantly lower side-to-side differences on static stability measures. Patient and evaluator blinding was achieved.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1 (Therapeutic Studies).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This high-quality, large, double-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT) addresses the insufficient evidence in the literature comparing PT, single-bundle hamstring, and DB hamstring reconstructions for ACL rupture in adults. In addition to the clinical and functional results, this RCT uniquely reports on the disease-specific, patient-reported quality-of-life outcome at 2 years postoperatively.

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.

Is double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to single-bundle? A comprehensive systematic review

PURPOSE

To describe current evidence on single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, in terms of differences in knee kinematics, functional outcomes, patient-reported outcomes and graft failures.

METHODS

An electronic search was made using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Studies published from January 1995 to August 2011 were included, and an updated search was made in PubMed in July 2012. Therapeutic studies, level of evidence I-III, for isolated primary ACL tears written in English comparing single- and double-bundle reconstruction reporting clinical outcome were included. Quality appraisal based on Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was performed.

RESULTS

Of 7,154 potentially eligible studies, 60 papers were included (25 randomised controlled trials, 21 prospective comparative studies, 14 retrospective comparative studies), comprising 4,146 patients (2,072 single-bundle, 2,074 double-bundle). Minor differences were found between study types. An analysis of graft failures revealed fewer re-ruptures in double-bundle reconstruction than single-bundle, 19 and 44, respectively. Up to 45 % of the studies reported a superior outcome in double-bundle reconstruction in terms of antero-posterior laxity, measured with the Lachman, anterior drawer, KT-1000/2000 and navigation. Measurements of rotatory laxity revealed superior results in double-bundle reconstruction measured with pivot shift and navigation in 18/42 (8/15 anatomically reconstructed) and 9/20 studies, respectively. Patient-reported outcome measures and functional outcomes did not differ to a large extent; however, differences when identified were almost exclusively in favour of double-bundle reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, double-bundle reconstruction appears to have fewer re-ruptures and less antero-posterior and rotatory laxity. Furthermore, no differences were found in short-term patient-reported outcome measures or objective findings. However, detailed statistical analyses of the included studies divided into homogeneous groups are needed to avoid reporting bias and to confirm any statistical difference.

Mid- to long-term results of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the mid-to long-term results of a randomized controlled trial of single-bundle (SB) versus double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using a semitendinosus tendon.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with an autologous semitendinosus tendon were prospectively randomized into 2 groups: SB reconstruction (n = 39) and DB reconstruction (n = 39). In both groups, grafts were fixed at 30° of flexion with a total tension of 80 N. The following evaluation methods were used: clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) measurement, muscle strength, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, subjective rating scale regarding patient satisfaction and sports performance level, graft retear, contralateral ACL tear, and additional meniscus surgery.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (25 in SB group and 28 in DB group) who were followed up for a minimum of 3 years (mean, 69 months; range, 36 to 140 months) were evaluated. Preoperatively, there were no differences between the groups. Postoperatively, the Lachman and pivot-shift test results were better in the DB group (P = .024 and P < .0001, respectively). KT measurements were better in the DB group (mean, 1.4 mm v 2.7 mm; P = .0023). The Tegner score was also better in the DB group (P = .033). There were no significant differences in range of motion, muscle strength, Lysholm score, subjective rating scale, graft retear, and secondary meniscal tear.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACL reconstruction using the transtibial approach, DB reconstruction was significantly better than SB reconstruction regarding anterior and rotational stability during the 3- to 12-year follow-up. The results of KT measurements and the Lachman and pivot-shift tests were significantly better in the DB group, whereas there was no difference in the anterior drawer test results. The Tegner score was also better in the DB group; however, there were no differences in the other subjective findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, lesser-quality prospective randomized trial.

Factors affecting return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a review of the current literature

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has been reported to produce normal or near-normal knee results in > 90% of patients. A recent meta-analysis suggested that, despite normal or near-normal knees, many athletes do not return to sports. Rates and timing of return to competitive athletics are quite variable depending on the graft type, the age of the patient, the sport, and the level of play. Even when athletes do return to play, often they do not return to their previous level. Graft failure, subjective physical factors, and psychological factors, including fear of reinjury and lack of motivation, appear to play a large role in patients' ability to return to sporting activities.

Transtibial versus independent drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

While numerous cadaveric, in vivo, and clinical studies have compared transtibial and independent drilling of femoral tunnels during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, there is no evidence-based consensus on which technique affords the best outcome.

HYPOTHESIS

There is no difference in clinical outcome between transtibial and independent drilling of femoral tunnels.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

METHODS

Cadaveric, in vivo, and clinical studies comparing transtibial and independent drilling techniques were systematically identified. A qualitative synthesis of nonrandomized studies and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed. In addition, a meta-regression analysis of RCTs that did not directly compare drilling techniques was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 49 studies were included in the qualitative review, and 15 were included in the meta-analysis; 22 studies were included in the meta-regression. In biomechanical studies, independent drilling placed the center of the femoral tunnel closer to the center of the femoral footprint (mean difference, 2.69 mm; 95% CI, 0.46-4.92; P < .00001). Independent drilling reduced anterior tibial translation with the Lachman examination (mean difference, 2.2 mm; 95% CI, 0.34-4.07; P = .02), 134 N of anterior load (mean difference, 1 mm; 95% CI, 0.29-1.71; P = .006), and simulated pivot shift (mean difference, 3.36 mm; 95% CI, 1.88-4.85; P < .00001). The meta-analysis showed improved Lysholm scores with independent drilling (mean difference, -0.62 points; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.55; P = .009), although the clinical relevance of this small difference is questionable. There were no significant differences in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective scores or Tegner scores between groups. With the meta-regression, there were no significant differences in failure rates or IKDC objective scores.

CONCLUSION

While there are biomechanical data suggesting improved knee stability and more anatomic graft placement with independent drilling, no significant clinical differences were found between the 2 techniques.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The current evidence shows that transtibial and independent drilling techniques have equivalent clinical outcomes at short-term to midterm follow-up. The long-term effects of subtle differences in tunnel position and postoperative knee kinematics should be further studied in dedicated, prospective cohort and randomized studies.

Double-bundle reconstruction results in superior clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction

PURPOSE

To compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with those of single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

An electronic search of the database PubMed (1966-September 2011), EMBASE (1984-September 2011), and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL; 3rd Quarter, 2011) was undertaken to identify relevant studies. Main clinical outcomes were knee stability measurements including KT-1000 arthrometer measurement, Pivot shift test, and Lachman test, and clinical outcome measurements including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, and complications.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were finally included in this meta-analysis, which were all classified as high risk of bias according to the Collaboration's recommended tool. It is seen that compared to SB ACL reconstruction, DB ACL reconstruction results in a KT-1000 arthrometer outcome 0.63 and 1.00 mm closer to the normal knee in a short- and long-term follow-up, respectively. Our results also reveal that DB-treated patients have a significantly higher negative rate of the pivot shift test (p < 0.00001 and = 0.006 in a short- and long-term follow-up, respectively) and Lachman test (n.s. and p < 0.0001 in a short- and long-term follow-up, respectively) compared to SB-treated patients. As for the clinical outcome measurements, a significant difference is found between SB versus DB ACL reconstruction regarding the IKDC (p = 0.006 and < 0.0001 in a short- and long-term follow-up, respectively) and complications (p = 0.03), while there is no significant difference between the two groups regarding Lysholm knee score (n.s.) and Tegner activity score (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Overall, double-bundle ACL reconstruction yields better clinical outcomes when compared to single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

II.

Outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle versus double-bundle technique: meta-analysis of 19 randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yields better improvement in stability and functional recovery than the single-bundle technique.

METHODS

An Internet search was performed of the Pubmed, Embase, AMED, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases to find all published randomized controlled trials of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction treated with the double-bundle versus single-bundle technique. Outcomes of stability improvement and functional recovery were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

One thousand six hundred sixty-seven patients in 19 randomized controlled trials were involved in the meta-analysis. The overall relative risk (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model in the pivot shift test and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score for single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction were 0.77 (0.67, 0.89) and 0.80 (0.68, 0.93), respectively. The overall relative risk calculated with the fixed effects model in the Lachman test was 0.84 (0.78 to 0.92). The overall standard mean differences (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model were 0.26 (0.05, 0.46) for anterior side-to-side difference; -0.08 (-0.28,0.12) for Lysholm score; Tegner activity scale, -0.41 (-0.85, 0.03) for Tegner activity score; and -0.08 (-0.32, 0.15) for IKDC subjective score.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of random controlled trials revealed that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in significantly better anterior and rotational stability and higher IKDC objective scores compared with single-bundle reconstruction. However, the meta-analysis did not detect any significant differences in subjective outcome measures between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction, as evidenced by the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and IKDC subjective score.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture is a common orthopaedic procedure. One area of controversy is whether the method of double-bundle reconstruction, which represents the 'more anatomical' approach, gives improved outcomes compared with the more traditional single-bundle reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of double-bundle versus single-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to February 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to February week 3 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 8). We also searched trial registers, conference proceedings, and contacted authors where necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected articles, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials were included. These involved 1433 people, mostly young physically active adults. All included trials had methodological weaknesses and were at risk of bias, notably selection bias from inadequate or lack of allocation concealment. Data for pooling individual outcomes were available for a maximum of nine trials and 54% of participants.There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction in the subjective functional knee scores (subjective IKDC score, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score) in the intermediate (six months up to two years since surgery) or long term (two to five years from surgery). For example, the long term results for the Lysholm score (0 to 100: best score) were: mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.50 to 1.75; 5 trials, 263 participants). The only trial reporting on long term knee pain found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in adverse effects and complications (e.g. infection reported by nine trials (7/285 versus 7/393; risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.81); graft failure reported by six trials (1/169 versus 4/185; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.90).Limited data from five trials found a better return to pre-injury level of activity after double-bundle reconstruction (147/162 versus 208/255; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25). At long term follow-up, there were statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for IKDC knee examination (normal or nearly normal categories: 325/344 versus 386/429; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08; 9 trials), knee stability measured with KT-1000 arthrometer (MD -0.74 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.37; 5 trials, 363 participants) and rotational knee stability tested by the pivot-shift test (normal or nearly normal categories: 293/298 versus 382/415; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 9 trials). There were also statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for newly occurring meniscal injury (9/240 versus 24/358; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92; 6 trials) and traumatic ACL rupture (1/120 versus 8/149; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.96; 3 trials). There were no statistically significant differences found between the two groups in range of motion (flexion and extension) deficits.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults, although there is limited evidence that double-bundle ACL reconstruction has some superior results in objective measurements of knee stability and protection against repeat ACL rupture or a new meniscal injury. High quality, large and appropriately reported randomised controlled trials of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults appear justified.

Evaluating the tibial and femoral insertion site of the anterior cruciate ligament using an objective coordinate system: a cadaver study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tibial and femoral insertion site of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) using an objective coordinate system in a cadaver study in order to confirm radiological assumptions of previous investigators who identified the tibial footprint (T) of the ACL on T (5.3; 5.5) and the femoral footprint (F) on F (2.9; 3.5).

METHODS

The tibial and femoral insertion site of the ACL was analysed on 30 human cadaver knee joints preserved according to the technique by Thiel. Thirty femora and tibiae were photographed under standardised methods and measured on a coordinate system twice by two examiners with respect to the ACL's footprint. We evaluated these measurements by use of the Cohen's kappa inter- and intraobserver coefficient for two observers.

RESULTS

The photographs and tibial and femoral measurements were achieved with an almost perfect and a substantial agreement of inter- and intraobserver coefficients. Further, we could demonstrate that assumptions of anatomic points in previous radiological investigations were correct.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirmed the anatomic tibial and femoral ACL footprint of a previous investigation and further the reproducibility of our coordinate system as an objective method for graft placement evaluation.

A matched pairs comparison of single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions, clinical results and manual laxity testing

PURPOSE

To compare the subjective clinical results as well as manual anterior and rotational stability in patients treated with either single- (SB) or double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients who had undergone SB or DB hamstring ACL reconstruction with hamstrings were included in a retrospective matched pair analysis. At follow-up IKDC subjective, CKS, KOOS, CKS and a visual analogue satisfaction scale was assessed. A blinded surgeon examined the joint laxity and completed the objective IKDC. The KT-1000 was used to bilaterally test anterior tibial translation. Patients with confounding variables, which statistically influenced the clinical outcome (passive flexion and extension deficits, persistent quadriceps deficit, tibiofemoral osteoarthritis and non-repairable medial meniscus injury), were identified and excluded from the statistical analysis (n = 10).

RESULTS

For all subjective scores, DB patients reported increased scores compared with SB patients. While consistently higher scores were demonstrated, statistical significance was only achieved for the IKDC subjective (P = 0.04) and VAS satisfaction (P = 0.02). Graded stability results of the Lachman, anterior drawer and pivot-shift tests were significantly higher in the DB group and KT-1000 side-to-side difference was significantly better for DB (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

DB ACL reconstruction appeared to more consistently result in significantly higher subjective outcome scores and manual tests of joint stability than SB ACL reconstruction. Besides the surgical technique, normal extension and quadriceps strength after surgery were identified to be an essential component in order to provide the patient with a successful outcome.

Three-dimensional anatomic evaluation of the anterior cruciate ligament for planning reconstruction

Anatomic study related to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery has been developed in accordance with the progress of imaging technology. Advances in imaging techniques, especially the move from two-dimensional (2D) to three-dimensional (3D) image analysis, substantially contribute to anatomic understanding and its application to advanced ACL reconstruction surgery. This paper introduces previous research about image analysis of the ACL anatomy and its application to ACL reconstruction surgery. Crucial bony landmarks for the accurate placement of the ACL graft can be identified by 3D imaging technique. Additionally, 3D-CT analysis of the ACL insertion site anatomy provides better and more consistent evaluation than conventional “clock-face” reference and roentgenologic quadrant method. Since the human anatomy has a complex three-dimensional structure, further anatomic research using three-dimensional imaging analysis and its clinical application by navigation system or other technologies is warranted for the improvement of the ACL reconstruction.