Volume and contact surface area analysis of bony tunnels in single and double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autograft tendons: in vivo three-dimensional imaging analysis

Comparison of Rotatory and Sagittal Laxity After Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction: Outcomes at 7-Year Follow-up

Background:

Biomechanical studies have shown excellent anteroposterior and rotatory laxity control after double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, but no clinical studies have compared midterm (>5-year) residual laxity between the DB and single-bundle (SB) techniques.

Purpose:

To clinically compare sagittal and rotatory laxities and residual sagittal laxity on the KT-1000 arthrometer between patients treated with an SB ACL reconstruction and those treated with a DB ACL reconstruction at the 7-year follow-up.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 110 patients were included between January 2006 and December 2007. The patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: those treated with SB ACL reconstruction (n = 63) and those treated with the DB technique (n = 47). All patients were then reviewed at a minimum of 7 years of follow-up; patients with ACL rerupture (n = 3 in the SB group and n = 2 in the DB group) were excluded from the postoperative comparative analysis. Residual anterior laxity (Lachman test), rotatory laxity (pivot-shift test), and sagittal laxity (KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference) were measured and compared between the 2 groups.

Results:

The mean age at surgery was 23.0 ± 5.1 years for the DB group and 28.1 ± 7.0 years for the SB group, and the mean follow-up was 7.4 ± 0.8 years. No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of age, sex, preoperative laxity on KT-1000, preoperative Tegner score, or concomitant meniscal lesions. Residual postoperative laxity via Lachman testing (P < .01), pivot-shift testing (P = .042), and the KT-1000 arthrometer (P < .01) was statistically significantly in favor of DB reconstruction.

Conclusion:

DB ACL reconstruction allowed better control of anterior stability during the evaluation via the Lachman test and via objective measurement on the KT-1000, as well as rotatory stability at a minimum of 7 years of follow-up.

Relationship between Spinal Cord Volume and Spinal Cord Injury due to Spinal Shortening

Vertebral column resection is associated with a risk of spinal cord injury. In the present study, using a goat model, we aimed to investigate the relationship between changes in spinal cord volume and spinal cord injury due to spinal shortening, and to quantify the spinal cord volume per 1-mm height in order to clarify a safe limit for shortening. Vertebral column resection was performed at T10 in 10 goats. The spinal cord was shortened until the somatosensory-evoked potential was decreased by 50% from the baseline amplitude or delayed by 10% relative to the baseline peak latency. A wake-up test was performed, and the goats were observed for two days postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure the spinal cord volume, T10 height, disc height, osteotomy segment height, and spinal segment height pre- and postoperatively. Two of the 10 goats were excluded, and hence, only data from eight goats were analyzed. The somatosensory-evoked potential of these eight goats demonstrated meaningful changes. With regard to neurologic function, five and three goats were classified as Tarlov grades 5 and 4 at two days postoperatively. The mean shortening distance was 23.6 ± 1.51 mm, which correlated with the d-value (post-pre) of the spinal cord volume per 1-mm height of the osteotomy segment (r = 0.95, p < 0.001) and with the height of the T10 body (r = 0.79, p = 0.02). The mean d-value (post-pre) of the spinal cord volume per 1-mm height of the osteotomy segment was 142.87 ± 0.59 mm³ (range, 142.19–143.67 mm³). The limit for shortening was approximately 106% of the vertebral height. The mean volumes of the osteotomy and spinal segments did not significantly change after surgery (t = 0.310, p = 0.765 and t = 1.241, p = 0.255, respectively). Thus, our results indicate that the safe limit for shortening can be calculated using the change in spinal cord volume per 1-mm height.