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

The 10-Year Outcomes of Single- versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have been compared for years, and long-term outcomes of the two techniques remain inconclusive. We compared the 10-year outcomes of SB and DB reconstruction, in terms of subjective scores, knee stability, graft failure, and osteoarthritis (OA). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies, without restrictions on study design, language, or publication date. The risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I) and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), respectively. Reconstructions scoring at least 8 on the Anatomic ACLR Scoring Checklist (AARSC) were considered anatomic. The results were narratively summarized and graphically represented using tables and forest plots. Our search included six studies (two randomized control trials [RCTs] and four cohort studies [CSs]), comprising 222 SB and 214 DB reconstruction patients, with an average follow-up of 11.4 years. Of these, four studies achieved a methodological rating of "good" or above. Bias risk was evaluated as "some concerns" in the RCTs and "serious" in the CSs. Six, four, four, and two studies reported on subjective scores, knee stability, graft failure, and OA, respectively. Except for one study that reported a higher Lysholm score (p = 0.007) in the DB group, no group differences in subjective scores were identified. According to one study, the DB group performed better on the Lachman test (p = 0.02) and the KT-2000 arthrometer (p = 0.024 and 0.034 for pulling and back pushing, respectively). Three studies revealed higher negative rates of the pivot shift test in the DB group. The incidence of graft failure and OA were not statistically significant between the SB and DB groups. The existing evidence does not conclusively determine whether DB reconstruction provides long-term advantages over SB reconstruction. Future research with larger sample sizes and higher levels of evidence is warranted.

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.

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.

Investigation of the medium-term effect of osteoprotegerin/bone morphogenetic protein 2 combining with collagen sponges on tendon-bone healing in a rabbit

BACKGROUND

Osteoprotegerin (OPG) and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) could be administered sequentially to promote tendon-bone healing. There remain several unresolved issues in our previously published study: a) the release kinetics of OPG/BMP-2 from the OPG/BMP-2/collagen sponge (CS) combination in vitro remained unclear; b) the medium-term effect of the OPG/BMP-2/CS combination was not analyzed. Hence, we design this study to address the issues mentioned above.

METHODS

30 rabbits undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with an Achilles tendon autograft randomly received one of the 3 delivery at the femoral and tibial tunnels: OPG/BMP-2, OPG/BMP-2/CS combination, and nothing (blank control). At 8 and 24 weeks post-surgery, the biomechanical tests and histologic analysis were used to evaluate the tendon-bone healing.

RESULTS

In mechanical tests, the OPG/BMP-2/CS group showed a higher final failure load and stiffness than the other groups at 8 and 24 weeks. Additionally, the maximum stretching distance showed a decreasing trend. The mechanical failure pattern of samples shifted from a tunnel pull-away to a graft midsubstance rupture after OPG/BMP-2/CS-treated. From histological analysis, the OPG/BMP-2/CS treatment increased the amount of collagen fibers (collagen I and II) and promoted fibrocartilage attachment.

CONCLUSION

CS as a carrier promotes the medium-term effect of OPG and BMP-2 on tendon-bone healing at the tendon-bone interface in a rabbit ACLR model. OPG, BMP-2 and CS were already applied in several clinical practice, but a further study of clinic use of OPG/BMP-2/CS is still needed.

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.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Autologous Hamstring Single- versus Double-Bundle Graft: A Prospective Study with 10-Year Follow-up

The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical and subjective outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using an autologous hamstring double bundle (DB) with a single bundle (SB) after a 10-year follow-up. A prospective comparative cohort study was performed of 47 consecutive patients with ACL rupture included between May 2006 and March 2008. Inclusion criteria were less than 2 years since the injury date, no previous surgery on the affected knee, and having closed growth plates. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) SB group (n = 25) and (2) DB group (n = 22). Patients underwent evaluation before surgery and at 1 and 10 years postoperatively. The clinical evaluation included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Questionnaire, pivot shift test, and single hop test, as well as X-rays (anterior drawer X-rays on a Telos stress radiography). Range of motion (ROM) was assessed at 10-year follow-up. Both groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Post hoc power analysis showed that among 30 and 226 patients would be needed for statistical significance, depending on the outcome. With the numbers available, no significant differences were observed in subjective IKDC, anterior stability (measured with Telos), and functional test outcomes (single hop test) between both groups at 1 and 10 years postoperatively. Regarding rotational instability (pivot-shift test), DB group was significantly superior (p = 0.002). Regarding ROM, no significant differences were observed between groups. No failure was registered in any of the groups. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with an autologous hamstring, both with bundles and DB, shows overall better outcomes compared with the status before surgery. DB ACLR provides better rotational control of the knee, an outcome that is maintained after 10 years.

Current trends in the anterior cruciate ligament part 1: biology and biomechanics

A trend within the orthopedic community is rejection of the belief that "one size fits all." Freddie Fu, among others, strived to individualize the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries based on the patient's anatomy. Further, during the last two decades, greater emphasis has been placed on improving the outcomes of ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). Accordingly, anatomic tunnel placement is paramount in preventing graft impingement and restoring knee kinematics. Additionally, identification and management of concomitant knee injuries help to re-establish knee kinematics and prevent lower outcomes and registry studies continue to determine which graft yields the best outcomes. The utilization of registry studies has provided several large-scale epidemiologic studies that have bolstered outcomes data, such as avoiding allografts in pediatric populations and incorporating extra-articular stabilizing procedures in younger athletes to prevent re-rupture. In describing the anatomic and biomechanical understanding of the ACL and the resulting improvements in terms of surgical reconstruction, the purpose of this article is to illustrate how basic science advancements have directly led to improvements in clinical outcomes for ACL-injured patients.Level of evidenceV.