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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

ACL stump and ACL femoral landmarks are equally reliable in ACL reconstruction for assisting ACL femoral tunnel positioning

PURPOSE

This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the accuracy of femoral tunnel positioning after anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction performed with the remnant preservation (RP) technique versus the non-remnant preservation (NRP) technique.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 145 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction from May 2020 to May 2022 were performed in this single-surgeon study. A total of 120 patients met the inclusion criteria and were allocated into two groups according to the surgical technique (i.e. RP group and NRP group). The relative location of the femoral tunnel in the lateral condyle was evaluated as a percentage using a standardized grid system on the three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) image. The accuracy and precision of the RP group were assessed based on published anatomical data in direct comparison with the NRP group.

RESULTS

According to the surgical procedure, 57 of the 120 patients included were allocated into the RP group, and 63 into the NRP group. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of tunnel position (posterior-to-distal (PD): 28.4 ± 5.4% (RP) vs. 31.8 ± 5.3% (NRP); P = 0.01), (anterior-to-posterior (AP): 32.6 ± 7.7% (RP) vs. 38.8 ± 7.7% (NRP); P = 0.00), while no significant differences were found in terms of the accuracy (8.6% (RP) vs. 8.9% (NRP); n.s) and precision (4.4% (RP) vs. 5.6% (NRP); n.s) of femoral tunnel positioning between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

From this single-surgeon study, it was concluded that there were no differences in the creation of ACL femoral tunnel between the RP technique and the non-remnant preserving technique. Meanwhile, the RP technique would not sacrifice the ideal position of the femoral tunnel and is able to retain the possible benefits of the ACL stump.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Intra-Articular Biomechanical Changes of the Meniscus and Ligaments During Stance Phase of Gait Circle after Different Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgical Procedures: A Finite Element Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The debate on the superiority of single- or double-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has not ceased. The comparative studies on intra-articular biomechanics after different surgical reconstructions are rare. This study is to evaluate the biomechanical stress distribution intra-knee after single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by three-dimensional finite element analysis, and to observe the change of stress concentration under the condition of vertical gradient loads.

METHODS

In this study, magnetic resonance imaging data were extracted from patients and healthy controls for biomechanical analysis. Patients included in the three models were matched in age and sex. The strength and distribution of induced stresses were analyzed in two frequently used procedures, anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using femoral-graft-tibial system under different loads, to mimic a post-operation mechanical motion. The three-dimensional finite-element models for normal ligament and two surgical methods were applied. A vertical force simulating daily walking was performed on the models to assess the interfacial stresses and displacements of intra-articular tissues and ligaments. The evaluation results mainly included the stress of each part of ligament and meniscus. The stress values of different parts of three models were extracted and compared.

RESULTS

The stress of ligament/graft at femoral side of three finite-element models was significantly higher than at tibial side, while the highest level was observed in single-bundle reconstruction finite-element model. With the increase of force, the maximum stress in the medial (7.1-7.1 MPa) and lateral (4.9-7.4 MPa) meniscus of single-bundle reconstruction finite-element model shifted from the anterior horn to the central area (p = 0.0161, 0.0479, respectively). The stress was shown to be at a lower level at femoral side and posterior cruciate ligament of intra-knee in two reconstruction finite-element models than that in normal finite-element models, while presented higher level at the tibial side than normal knee (p = 0.3528). The displacement of the femoral side and intra-knee areas in reconstruction finite-element models was greater than that in normal finite-element model (p = 0.0855).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the single-bundle technique, the graft of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has better stress dissipation effect and can prevent postoperative meniscus tear more effectively.

Single Bundle Versus Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is considered as one of the most common sport-related musculoskeletal injuries. Double bundle (DB) and single bundle (SB) surgical techniques has been widely adopted for ACL reconstruction. This systematic review aimed to provide updated evidence by comparing the short-term, mid-term, and long-term knee stability and functional outcomes of DB and SB reconstruction techniques.

Methods

We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. We have selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DB and SB ACL reconstruction techniques for primary isolated ACL tear. We have assessed the following outcomes: pivot shift test, Lachman test, KT-1000/2000 knee ligament arthrometer, Lysholm knee function score, Tegner activity score, and graft failure. We have used the standardized mean difference (SMD) was to summarize the continuous outcomes while risk ratio (RR) was used to summarize the dichotomous outcomes.

Results

A total of 34 RCTs that enrolled 2,992 participants deemed eligible. Overall, DB showed significantly better outcomes in terms of pivot shift test (RR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.75), Lachman test (RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95), and KT 1000/2000 arthrometer (SMD = - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.08). No discernible difference was found between DB and SB techniques in the overall Lysholm score (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.27), Tegner score (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.24), or graft failure rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.85).

Conclusions

Our review suggests that DB ACL reconstruction technique shows significantly better knee stability and functional outcomes than SB at short-term follow-up. However, both techniques exhibit similar outcomes at mid-term and long-term follow-up.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00718-0.

Trends in Primary Anatomical Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Practice in Adult Patients Prevalent Among Arthroscopy Surgeons of Six Southern States of India

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines from multiple scientific studies decide the general trend in ACLR practice, there is often a variation between scientific guidelines and actual practice.

METHODS

A 17-member committee comprised of sports surgeons with experience of a minimum of 10 years of arthroscopy surgery finalized a survey questionnaire consisting of concepts in ACL tear management and perioperative trends, intraoperative and post-operative practices regarding single-bundle anatomic ACLR. The survey questionnaire was mailed to 584 registered sports surgeons in six states of south India. A single, non-modifiable response was collected from each member and analyzed.

RESULTS

324 responses were received out of 584 members. A strong consensus was present regarding Hamstring tendons preference for ACLR, graft diameter ≥ 7.5 mm, viewing femoral footprint through the anterolateral portal, drilling femoral tunnel from anteromedial portal guided by ridges and remnants of femoral footprint using a freehand technique, suspensory devices to fix the graft in femur and interference screw in the tibia and post-operative bracing. A broad consensus was achieved in using a brace to minimize symptoms of instability of an ACL tear and antibiotic soaking of graft. There was no consensus regarding the timing of ACLR, preferred graft in athletes, pre-tensioning, extra-articular procedure, and return to sports. There was disagreement over hybrid tibial fixation and suture tapes to augment graft.

CONCLUSION

Diverse practices continue to prevail in the management of ACL injuries. However, some of the consensuses reached in this survey match global practices. Contrasting or inconclusive practices should be explored for potential future research.

Radiological maturation and clinical results of double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A 5-year prospective case-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to make a prospective comparison of the radiological and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHOD

This prospective, case-controlled study included 65 patients, separated into 2 groups as 33 patients undergoing single bundle (SB), and 32 patients undergoing double bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction. The patients were evaluated clinically using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Lysholm knee scores. Stability was evaluated with the KT-1000 Arthrometer Measurement, the Lachman and pivot shift tests. Magnetic resonance images (MRI) at 1 and 5 years postoperatively were evaluated by a musculoskeletal radiologist. All the operations were performed by a single surgeon and the clinical evaluations were made by an independent researcher.

RESULTS

Evaluation was made of a total of 53 patients (SB: 28, DB: 25). No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups regarding the postoperative IKDC and Lysholm scores. The pivot shift tests were negative in the DB group and positive in two patients of the SB group. The Lachman test was negative in all the patients. No significant difference was determined between the groups. No statistically significant difference was determined between the two groups in respect of the arthrometer measurements. In the SB group, revision surgery was performed in two patients due to graft failure. No graft failure findings were determined in the DB group, and no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of graft failure. On the MRIs taken at 1 year postoperatively, the ACL was seen to be hyperintense in 16 patients in the DB group and 6 patients in the SB group (p = 0.004). On the 5-year MRIs, ACL hypointensity could not be seen in three patients of the SB group and two of the DB group, with no difference determined between the groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In the 5-year follow-up period, no difference was determined between patients undergoing SB ACL reconstruction and those undergoing DB ACL reconstruction regarding clinical scores, knee stability, and MRI findings, but graft maturation occurs later the patients undergoing DB reconstruction.

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.

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique has advantages in chondroprotection and knee laxity control compared with single-bundle technique : A long-term follow-up with a minimum of 12 years

PURPOSE

To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (SBR) and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DBR) in patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, presenting no meniscus injury and no obvious preoperative cartilage degeneration.

METHODS

One hundred and three patients (38.6 ± 9.5 years) with a median follow-up of 151.6 months (range, 144-189 months) completed the retrospective study (SBR group: n = 51; DBR group: n = 52). Clinical outcomes were evaluated with physical examinations, KT-2000 anterior and posterior stability measurement with the knee in 30º of flexion, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Tegner score, Lysholm score; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (3.0 T) was performed, and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) cartilage degeneration grades were determined. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with cartilage degeneration.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the pre- and postoperative IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores between the SBR and DBR groups. The SBR group had over double the rate of positive pressure/rub patellar test results (SBR vs DBR, 43.1% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.011). The KT-2000, pivot-shift and Lachman test results were stratified and analyzed, and significant differences between the SBR and DBR groups were found (p < 0.05, respectively). The distribution of ICRS grades differed significantly between the groups at the last follow-up (p = 0.013). A multivariate analysis found that age and operation procedures were significant predictors of 0 and non-0 ICRS grades (odds ratio, 6.077 [95% CI 2.117-17.447] and 0.210 [95% CI 0.068-0.654], respectively) (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both SBR and DBR achieved overall good long-term results. DBR had advantages in objective outcome measures and was superior in preventing the occurrence of cartilage degeneration. Age was identified as a preoperative risk factor for significant postoperative cartilage degeneration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03984474.

Single- versus double-bundle patellar graft insertion for isolated MPFL reconstruction in patients with patellofemoral instability: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The MPFL reconstruction is performed either via a single-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB) procedure. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review comparing SB versus DB graft for recurrent patellofemoral instability, to summarize current evidence, and to clarify the role of both techniques. We focused on clinical scores, physical examination, complications, revision surgeries, and failures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In May of 2019 the main online databases were accessed. All the clinical studies treating isolated MPFL reconstruction for patellofemoral instability through a single and/or double-bundle graft were enrolled in the present systematic review. Only articles reporting primary isolated MPFL reconstruction, reporting a minimum of 12-months follow-up were considered for inclusion.

RESULTS

The scores of interest were in favour of the DB cohort: Kujala (+ 3.2, P = 0.03), Lysholm (+ 5.1, P = 0.001), Tegner (+ 0.3, P = 0.2), IKDC (+ 5.4, P = 0.01), VAS (+ 0.8, P = 0.3), ROM (+ 9.96, P = 0.04). In the DB graft, a reduction of overall complications (OR 0.59; P = 0.1), further surgeries (OR 0.64; P = 0.12) and re-dislocations (OR 0.61; P = 0.16) was observed. The SB group reported a reduction in the post-operative apprehension test (OR 2.42; P = 0.24).

CONCLUSION

Current study support the use of double-bundle tendon graft for isolated MPFL reconstruction in selected patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability.

Clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction with free quadriceps tendon autograft versus hamstring tendons autograft. A retrospective study with a minimal follow-up two years

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes of anatomic single bundle ACL reconstruction using either a free quadriceps tendon autograft or a quadrupled hamstring autograft with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing ACL reconstruction using either a free quadriceps tendon autograft or hamstring tendon autograft from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. ACL reconstruction was done in all patients due to isolated ACL tears. Patients with associated cartilage lesions > Outerbridge III, meniscal lesions in need of meniscectomy or repair as well as patients with prior knee surgery on the affected or contralateral knee were excluded. The primary outcome evaluation was the side-to-side difference in instrumented Lachman testing. Secondary outcome evaluation consisted in the Lysholm, modified Cincinnati and SF-36 scores. Side-to-side difference in range of motion and thigh diameter was also documented.

RESULTS

After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 82 patients were identified and 72 (87.8%) presented to the hospital for follow-up. There were 39 patients with quadriceps graft (30.64 ± 8.71, range: 18-53 years) and 33 patients with hamstrings (28.60 ± 6.74, range: 18-46 years). No statistically significant difference between groups was detected with regard to KT-1000 measurements (p = 0.326). No significant difference was found between the mean postoperative Lysholm (p = 0.299), the modified Cincinnati (p = 0.665) and the general SF-36 scores between groups (p = 0.588). Less side-to-side thigh diameter difference was noted in the quadriceps graft group (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, similar clinical results, in terms of stability and subjective measures, can be obtained after ACL reconstruction both with a free quadriceps and a 4-strand hamstring tendons autograft.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Long term results after double and single bundle ACL reconstruction: Is there any difference? A meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

The double-bundle (DB) techniques are considered to yield better stability of the knee compared with single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, most studies followed up patients in short to middle-term within 5 years, and the longer-term efficacy of SB and DB ACL reconstruction is still beyond consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the longer-term efficacy between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) techniques.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up to November, 2017 with an English language restriction. The searches were limited to human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were checked manually to avoid missing other potentially eligible studies. This process was performed iteratively until no additional articles could be included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager soft-ware.

Results

A total of five RCTs involving 294 patients were included finally. No studies were excluded due to insufficient data or low quality. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference between SB and double bundle DB reconstructions for Lysholm, IKDC, pivot shift, KT scores, and the development of osteoarthritis at a minimum of 5 years. No significant heterogeneity was found across all outcomes.

Conclusion

The best available evidence demonstrated that SB and DB techniques could yield similar efficacy for ACL reconstruction. And no superiority was founded in DB ACL reconstruction with a minimal 5-year follow-up. Given that, the relatively simple and proven techniques of SB ACL reconstruction may be preferable for orthopedic surgeons.

Level of evidence: Level I, Therapeutic Study.

Radiological evaluation of tunnel position in single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Indian population and their clinical correlation

BACKGROUND

Proper positioning of osseous tunnels during single bundle arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, which gives reproducibly good clinical outcome, is a matter of concern. Little evidence is there correlating tunnel position in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with their clinical outcome in Indian population. Our aim in this study was to examine if the radiological tunnel-positions were significantly associated to the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

ACL reconstruction was performed in 147 young patients with an isolated ACL tear. They were followed up prospectively for the next two years. Clinical assessment of each patient was done using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation form before surgery and at two years later the surgery. At the same time, the radiological assessment was done on standard digital radiographs.

RESULTS

Considering the anterior and posterior-most points on the Blumensaat's line as 0% and 100% respectively the average position of the femoral tunnel was at 84.8%. Similarly, the tibial tunnel was at 46.8% along the tibial plateau. On the coronal plane the average position of the tibial tunnel was at 45.6% point along the tibial plateau (measured from the medial-most point towards laterally). The mean position of the femoral tunnel in the coronal plane was at 43.2% along the broadest part of the distal femur (measured from the lateral extent). The average inclination angle of the graft measured 19.6° (along the coronal plane).

CONCLUSION

Ideal clinical outcome was significantly associated with the placement of the femoral tunnel along the sagittal plane. Placement of the femoral tunnel should not be beyond the 85% mark along the Blumensaat's line from the anterior-most point. No correlation was established between clinical results and any of the remaining radiological parameters described above.

The role of isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in knees with combined posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral complex injury

PURPOSE

This is a meta-analysis comparing biomechanical outcomes to determine whether an isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction can restore normal knee kinematics in a combined PCL/posterolateral complex (PLC) injury and whether double-bundle (DB) PCL reconstruction is superior in controlling posterior and rotational laxity compared with single-bundle (SB) PCL reconstruction in a PCL/PLC-deficient knee.

METHODS

A number of electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published through August 2016 that compared biomechanical outcomes of PCL reconstruction in patients who underwent reconstruction for combined PCL/PLC deficiencies. Data were searched, extracted, analysed, and assessed for quality according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, and biomechanical outcomes were evaluated using various outcome values. The results are presented as relative ratios for binary outcomes and standard mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five biomechanical studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were significant differences in laxities such as posterior tibial translation (PTT), external rotation, varus rotation, and PTT coupled with external rotation in the isolated PCL reconstruction group compared with the native PCL group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in laxities such as PTT, external rotation, or varus rotation between the SB and DB PCL reconstruction groups.

CONCLUSION

Isolated PCL reconstruction, whether SB or DB, could not restore normal knee kinematics in the PCL/PLC-deficient knee. In such cases, residual laxity after isolated PCL reconstruction can be controlled successfully with PLC reconstruction. Therefore, simultaneous PCL and PLC reconstruction is recommended for patients with combined PCL/PLC injury.

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is better than single-bundle reconstruction in terms of objective assessment but not in terms of subjective score

PURPOSE

A comparison of clinical outcomes between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction for patients with ACL injury.

METHODS

Sixty patients were treated with either SB (n = 30) or DB (n = 30) ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2012. The hamstring tendons were autografted with suspensory fixation on the femoral side, while a bio-absorbable interference screw was used for fixation on the tibial side. These patients were evaluated using Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) forms (both objective and subjective), Lachman test, pivot shift test, and KT 1000 arthrometer.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up duration of 35.5 months (ranging between 30 and 42 months), the frequency of patients who had high objective IKDC scores was significantly higher in the DB group than those in the SB group. In terms of DB, the Lachman test was normal in 26 patients (86.7%), nearly normal in three patients (10%), and abnormal in one patient (3.3%); comparatively, in terms of SB, the Lachman test was normal in 20 patients (66.7%), nearly normal in eight patients (26.7%) and abnormal in two patients (6.6%). The pivot shift test was negative in 29 patients (96.7%) and 21 patients (70%) for DB and SB, respectively. The average KT-1000 side-to-side difference was 1.0 mm for DB and 1.5 mm for SB. The subjective IKDC and Lysholm score showed non-significant differences between both techniques.

CONCLUSION

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction was found to have a significant advantage in anterior and rotational stability as well as objective IKDC than that of SB reconstruction. However, subjective measurements showed no statistical differences between the techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Intraoperative Graft Isometry in Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

Little is known about the isometry of anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tunnel positions in vivo although it is closely related to graft tension throughout the range of motion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate intraoperative graft isometry in anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction in vivo.

Materials and Methods

Graft length changes were assessed before bio-screw fixation in the tibial tunnel by pulling the graft with tensions of 20 lbs and 30 lbs in full extension at flexion angles of 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120°.

Results

At the flexion angle of 30°, 20 lbs and 30 lbs of tension showed −0.4 mm and −0.6 mm length changes, respectively. The greater the flexion angle of the knee, the shorter the graft length in the joint. At the flexion angles of 90° and 120°, there was significant difference in the graft length change between 20 lbs and 30 lbs of tension.

Conclusions

Anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction was non-isometric. The graft length was the longest in full extension. The tension of graft became loose in flexion. At the flexion angles of 90° and 120°, there was significant difference in the graft length change between 20 lbs and 30 lbs of tension.

Restoring tibiofemoral alignment during ACL reconstruction results in better knee biomechanics

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) aims to restore normal knee joint function, stability and biomechanics and in the long term avoid joint degeneration. The purpose of this study is to present the anatomic single bundle (SB) ACLR that emphasizes intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation that occurs after ACL injury. It was hypothesized that this technique leads to optimal outcomes and better restoration of pathological tibiofemoral joint movement that results from ACL deficiency (ACLD).

METHODS

Thirteen men with unilateral ACLD were prospectively evaluated before and at a mean follow-up of 14.9 (SD = 1.8) months after anatomic SB ACLR with bone patellar tendon bone autograft. The anatomic ACLR replicated the native ACL attachment site anatomy and graft orientation. Emphasis was placed on intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation by reducing anterior tibial translation (ATT) and internal tibial rotation. Function was measured with IKDC, Lysholm and the Tegner activity scale, ATT was measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer and tibial rotation (TR) kinematics were measured with 3Dmotion analysis during a high-demand pivoting task.

RESULTS

The results showed significantly higher TR of the ACL-deficient knee when compared to the intact knee prior to surgery (12.2° ± 3.7° and 10.7° ± 2.6° respectively, P = 0.014). Postoperatively, the ACLR knee showed significantly lower TR as compared to the ACL-deficient knee (9.6°±3.1°, P = 0.001) but no difference as compared to the control knee (n.s.). All functional scores were significantly improved and ATT was restored within normal values (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation that results after ACL injury is an important step during anatomic SB ACLR. The intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation along with the replication of native ACL anatomy results in restoration of rotational kinematics of ACLD patients to normal levels that are comparable to the control knee. These results indicate that the reestablishment of tibiofemoral alignment during ACLR may be an important step that facilitates normal knee kinematics postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cohort study.

Anatomic ACL reconstruction: the normal central tibial footprint position and a standardised technique for measuring tibial tunnel location on 3D CT

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to define the normal ACL central tibial footprint position and describe a standardised technique of measuring tibial tunnel location on 3D CT for anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

The central position of the ACL tibial attachment site was determined on 76 MRI scans of young individuals. The central footprint position was referenced in the anterior-posterior (A-P) and medial-lateral (M-L) planes on a grid system over the widest portion of the proximal tibia. 3D CT images of 26 young individuals had a simulated tibial tunnel centred within the bony landmarks of the ACL footprint, and the same grid system was applied over the widest portion of the proximal tibia. The MRI central footprint position was compared to the 3D CT central footprint position to validate the technique and results.

RESULTS

The median age of the 76 MRI subjects was 24 years, with 32 females and 44 males. The ACL central footprint position was at 39 (±3 %) and 48 (±2 %), in the A-P and M-L planes, respectively. There was no significant difference in this position between sexes. The median age of the 26 CT subjects was 25.5 years, with 10 females and 16 males. The central position of the bony ACL footprint was at 38 (±2 %) and 48 (±2 %), in the A-P and M-L planes, respectively. The MRI and CT central footprint positions were not significantly different in relation to the medial position, but were different in relation to the anterior position (A-P 39 % vs. 38 %, p = 0.01). The absolute difference between the central MRI and CT reference positions was 0.45 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACL's normal central tibial footprint reference position has been defined, and the technique of measuring tibial tunnel location with a standardised grid system is described. This study will assist surgeons in evaluating tibial tunnel position in anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Biomechanical comparison of single- and double-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction

Background

Recurrent patellar dislocation is common clinically, primarily in adolescents. However, the biomechanical properties of single- and double-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction remain poorly understood.

Methods

Six fresh frozen adult cadaveric knee specimens were obtained for this study. Each specimen was fixed at 0° to test the force needed when the patella was laterally shifted 10 mm at a speed of 0.5 mm/s, and the test was repeated three times. This test was repeated when knee flexion was at 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°. All six specimens were tested in four statuses, including MPFL intact, MPFL torn, single-bundle MPFL reconstruction, and double-bundle MPFL reconstruction.

Results

Similar force is required in these MPFL statuses at 0° of flexion, except for the MPFL torn group with a smaller force (45.5 ± 9.6 N, p < 0.05). The force required in the MPFL torn group reduced from 12.8 to 38.8% compared to other groups, at 0°, 15°, 30°, and 45° of flexion angles. At the flexion of 15°, the double-bundle reconstruction group required a statistically greater force (85.9 ± 10.1 N) compared to the single-bundle reconstruction group (74.0 ± 7.9 N). Interestingly, no statistical difference was found at flexions of 60° and 90° in these four groups.

Conclusions

Both single-bundle and double-bundle MPFL reconstruction can restore the stability of the patella. The double-bundle reconstruction has an angular synergy effect that simulates the MPFL wide footprint in the patella, which enables it to have greater capacity to resist patellar dislocation before the patella entering the femoral trochlea at a smaller flexion angle.

Biomechanical comparison of graft structures in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction may offer kinematic restoration superior to anatomic single bundle (SB), but it remains technically challenging. The femoral attachment site has the most effect on ACL graft isometry, so a simplified three-socket (3S) construct which still uses two sockets to cover the femoral ACL attachment is attractive. It was hypothesised that ACL reconstruction using three- and four-socket techniques would more closely restore native knee kinematics compared to anatomic two-socket (SB) surgery.

METHODS

Nine cadaveric knees were used to evaluate the kinematics of ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, anatomic SB, three-socket, and DB arthroscopic ACL reconstructions. Suspensory fixation was used, and grafts were tensioned to match the anterior draw of the intact knee at 20°. A six-degree-of-freedom robotic system measured knee laxity under 90 N anterior tibial force and rotational laxity under 5 N-m torque. Combined moments were applied to simulate the pivot-shift subluxation: 4 N-m internal rotation and 8 N-m valgus.

RESULTS

Significant differences between reconstructions were not found during anterior tibial loading, apart from SB being more lax than DB at 60° flexion. All reconstructions produced comparable laxity to the intact state, apart from SB at 60°. Significant differences between reconstructions were not found at any flexion angle during tibial internal/external applied torques. Under combined loading, DB produced significantly less laxity than SB constructs apart from anterior tibial translation at 0° and internal rotation at 45°. 3S and DB were comparable to the native knee throughout.

CONCLUSION

Although 3S restored laxities to a similar extent to DB, significant superiority over SB surgery was not observed. Although statistically significant differences were found between SB and DB surgery during anterior tibial and simulated pivot-shift loading, both remained similar to the native knee. The clinical relevance is that this study did not support an ACL graft construct more complex than an anatomic single bundle.

The Results of Single Bundle Versus Double Bundle ACL Reconstruction Surgery, a Retrospective Study and Review of Literature

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of single bundle and double bundle surgical techniques for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods:

In this study, all single bundle and double bundle ACL reconstruction surgeries that were done in our university hospital from January 2008 to December 2012 were enrolled. All patients were followed at 2,6,12, 24 weeks and 1 a 2 years post operatively. On last follow up all patients were evaluated by clinical examination, KT-1000 and Lysholm questionnaire.

Results:

Seventy five patients were operated using single bundle and eighty five patients with double bundle technique. Fifty seven percent of patients in single bundle and 80% of patients in double bundle group had experienced pain during follow-up period. None of cases had knee extension or flexion loss. The average side to side differences using KT-1000 was 3.5 ± 0.38 (2.9-4.1) millimeters in single bundle group and 3.39 ± 0.39 (2.8-4) millimeters in double bundle group. These results showed no significant difference between two groups (P= 0.31). Lysholm score improved significantly in both groups, but there was no significant difference between them.

Conclusion:

According to this study the clinical results of single bundle ACL reconstruction was similar to double bundle reconstruction in short term follow up. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long term results.

The difference in clinical outcome of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with and without remnant preservation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance and complications between an ACL reconstruction with a remnant-preserving single-bundle technique and a standard single-bundle technique.

METHODS

A search was performed of RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes and complications of ACL reconstruction with remnant-preserving and standard single-bundle techniques during October 2014. Relevant data were extracted and CONSORT was used to assess the methodological quality. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included, with a total of 378 patients: 190 in the remnant-preservation technique group and 188 patients in standard-technique group. Assessing anterior stability, no difference was found between the groups for the KT arthrometer, negative rate of Lachman, and the pivot shift test. Assessing functional outcome, there was no significant difference in IKCD scores and grades or Lysholm score. In terms of complications, the percentage of tibial tunnel enlargement in the group of the remnant-preservation technique was significantly lower, despite no significant difference in the incidence of cyclops lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the remnant-preservation technique is similar to that with the standard technique in terms of anterior stability and functional recovery of the knee. Remnant preservation in ACL reconstruction decreases the percentage of tibial tunnel enlargement. Level of evidence is II.

Anatomical "C"-shaped double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in pre-adolescent children with open growth plates

PURPOSE

To analyse the clinical, rotational and radiological (MRI) results of paediatric anatomical "C-shaped" double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with anteromedial and posteromedial bundle compared to single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2014, 57 consecutive patients received a paediatric ACL reconstruction with open physis and were allocated into two groups, according to the surgical procedure. Transepiphyseal SB technique was used until 2012 and DB consecutively thereafter. Follow-up consisted of a clinical evaluation with assessment of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, KT-1000 arthrometer evaluation, VAS Scores for satisfaction, MRI and testing of rotational stability using a robotic system.

RESULTS

The mean time from ACL reconstruction to follow-up was 48.1 ± 15.8 in the SB group (n = 17) and 23.1 ± 13.2 in the DB group (n = 16; p < 0.001). No differences were found in the subjective scores. Biomechanically, there were significant differences identified in the KT-1000 (p < 0.03) and total tibial axial rotation (p < 0.04) when evaluating the reconstructed knee only. Ten of 17 (59%) of the SB patients had a Joint Play Area within the acceptable range of the median healthy knee value compared to 100 % in the DB group. Decreased patient satisfaction was associated with increased total tibial axial rotation. No growth disturbance was observed. Overall, 98% of patients were reached and either examined or interviewed. Re-rupture rate was 3 of 21 (14.3%) for DB and 9 of 35 (25.7%) for SB. All but one re-ruptures (92%) happened in the first 16 postoperative months independent of technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The re-rupture rate after pre-adolescent ACL reconstruction is too high both historically and in this mixed cohort. Anatomical transepiphyseal DB ACL reconstruction with open physis may result in a reduction in this re-rupture rate, which may be related to a tighter control of the Joint Play Area. While subjective clinical results were similar between SB and DB, decreased patient satisfaction was associated with increased total tibial axial rotation in the entire cohort. Despite the need for two transepiphyseal tunnels in the DB technique, there did not appear to be an increased risk in growth plate disturbance. Transepiphyseal DB ACL reconstruction appears to be a reasonable alternative to current techniques in pre-adolescent children with an ACL rupture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

A prospective study to evaluate the clinico-radiological outcomes of arthroscopic single bundle versus double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

PATIENT AND METHODS

60 patients with isolated ACL injury were divided into single bundle (SB) (n = 30) and double bundle (DB) reconstruction groups (n = 30) and operated between July 2009 and July 2012. Outcome evaluation was performed using GNRB arthrometer, International Knee Documentation Committee & Lysholm scale. Rotational stability was determined by lateral pivot-shift test. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed postoperatively to compare the reconstructed ACL graft orientation.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 34.8 months in SB and 36.2 months in DB group. At final follow-up, mean Lysholm score was 94.13 ± 2.67 in SB and 93.13 ± 3.31 in DB group (P value = 0.202, statistically non-significant). All patients in both groups were in grade A or B according to objective IKDC scores. Mean differential anterior tibial translation was 1.45 ± 0.6 mm in SB and 1.17 ± 0.8 mm in DB group (P value = 0.105, NS). All had negative pivot shift test in DB group while 2 patients had positive pivot shift in SB group. MRI of operated knees showed that values of mean sagittal ACL graft-tibial angle and mean coronal ACL graft-tibial angle were comparable in both groups (P value > 0.05, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistically significant difference concerning knee stability, knee scores, subjective evaluations, and MRI evaluation of graft inclination angles between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction groups at an average of 35 months of follow-up.

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

Background

Regarding reconstruction surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), there is still a debate whether to perform a single bundle (SB) or double bundle (DB) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the volume and surface area of femoral and tibial tunnels during transtibial SB versus transportal DB ACL reconstruction.

Methods

A consecutive series of 26 patients who underwent trantibial SB ACL reconstruction and 27 patients with transportal DB ACL reconstruction using hamstring autograft from January 2010 to October 2010 were included in this study. Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) was taken within one week after operation. The CT bone images were segmented with use of Mimics software v14.0. The obtained digital images were then imported in the commercial package Geomagic Studio v10.0 and SketchUp Pro v8.0 for processing. The femoral and tibial tunnel lengths, diameters, volumes and surface areas were evaluated. A comparison between the two groups was performed using the independent-samples t-test. A p-value less than the significance value of 5% (p < 0.05) was considered statistically significant.

Results

Regarding femur tunnels, a significant difference was not found between the tunnel volume for SB technique (1,496.51 ± 396.72 mm³) and the total tunnel volume for DB technique (1,593.81 ± 469.42 mm³; p = 0.366). However, the total surface area for femoral tunnels was larger in DB technique (919.65 ± 201.79 mm²) compared to SB technique (810.02 ± 117.98 mm²; p = 0.004). For tibia tunnels, there was a significant difference between tunnel volume for the SB technique (2,070.43 ± 565.07 mm³) and the total tunnel volume for the DB technique (2,681.93 ± 668.09 mm³; p ≤ 0.001). The tibial tunnel surface area for the SB technique (958.84 ± 147.50 mm²) was smaller than the total tunnel surface area for the DB technique (1,493.31 ± 220.79 mm²; p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

Although the total femoral tunnel volume was similar between two techniques, the total surface area was larger in the DB technique. For the tibia, both total tunnel volume and the surface area were larger in DB technique.

In vivo three-dimensional imaging analysis of femoral and tibial tunnel locations in single and double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Anatomic footprint restoration of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is recommended during reconstruction surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the femoral and tibial tunnel positions of transtibial single bundle (SB) and transportal double bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction using three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT).

METHODS

In this study, 26 patients who underwent transtibial SB ACL reconstruction and 27 patients with transportal DB ACL reconstruction using hamstring autograft. 3D-CTs were taken within 1 week after the operation. The obtained digital images were then imported into the commercial package Geomagic Studio v10.0. The femoral tunnel positions were evaluated using the quadrant method. The mean, standard deviation, standard error, minimum, maximum, and 95% confidence interval values were determined for each measurement.

RESULTS

The femoral tunnel for the SB technique was located 35.07% ± 5.33% in depth and 16.62% ± 4.99% in height. The anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) tunnel of DB technique was located 30.48% ± 5.02% in depth, 17.12% ± 5.84% in height and 34.76% ± 5.87% in depth, 45.55% ± 6.88% in height, respectively. The tibial tunnel with the SB technique was located 45.43% ± 4.81% from the anterior margin and 47.62% ± 2.51% from the medial tibial articular margin. The AM and PL tunnel of the DB technique was located 33.76% ± 7.83% from the anterior margin, 45.56% ± 2.71% from the medial tibial articular margin and 53.19% ± 3.74% from the anterior margin, 46.00% ± 2.48% from the medial tibial articular margin, respectively. The tibial tunnel position with the transtibial SB technique was located between the AM and PL tunnel positions formed with the transportal DB technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the 3D-CT measuring method, the location of the tibia tunnel was between the AM and PL footprints, but the center of the femoral tunnel was at more shallow position from the AM bundle footprint when ACL reconstruction was performed by the transtibial SB technique.

Anatomical versus non-anatomical single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study of comparison of knee stability

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the initial stability of anatomical and non-anatomical single bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and to determine which would better restore intact knee kinematics. Our hypothesis was that the initial stability of anatomical single bundle ACL reconstruction would be superior to that of non-anatomical single bundle ACL reconstruction.

Methods

Anterior tibial translation (ATT) and internal rotation of the tibia were measured with a computer navigation system in seven pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric knees under two testing conditions (manual maximum anterior force, and a manual maximum anterior force combined with an internal rotational force). Tests were performed at 0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees of flexion with the ACL intact, the ACL transected, and after reconstruction of one side of a pair with either anatomical or non-anatomical single bundle ACL reconstruction.

Results

Under manual maximal anterior force, both reconstruction techniques showed no significant difference of ATT when compared to ACL intact knee state at 30° of knee flexion (p > 0.05). Under the combined anterior and internal rotatory force, non-anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction showed significant difference of ATT compared to those in ACL intact group (p < 0.05). In contrast, central anatomical single bundle ACL reconstruction showed no significant difference of ATT compared to those in ACL intact group (p > 0.05). Internal rotation of the tibia showed no significant difference in the ACL intact, the ACL transected, non-anatomical reconstructed and anatomical reconstructed knees.

Conclusions

Anatomical single bundle ACL reconstruction restored the initial stability closer to the native ACL under combined anterior and internal rotational forces when compared to non-anatomical ACL single bundle reconstruction.

A comparison of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstruction for isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the clinical results of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstructions of an isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury.

METHODS

This study reviewed the data for 14 patients who underwent a single bundle tibial inlay PCL reconstruction (Group A) and 16 patients who underwent a double bundle tibial inlay PCL reconstruction (Group B) between August 1999 and August 2002. The mean follow-up period in groups A and B was 90.5 months and 64 months, respectively.

RESULTS

The Lysholm knee scores in groups A and B increased from an average of 43.3 +/- 7.04 and 44.7 +/- 5.02 preoperatively to 88.1 +/- 7.32 and 88.7 +/- 9.11 points at the final follow-up, respectively. In group A, stress radiography using a Telos device showed that the preoperative mean side-to-side differences (SSDs) of 9.5 +/- 1.60 mm at 30 degrees of flexion and 9.8 +/- 1.70 mm at 90 degrees of flexion were improved to 2.8 +/- 1.19 mm and 3.0 +/- 1.1 mm, respectively. In group B, the preoperative SSDs of 10.4 +/- 1.50 mm at 30 degrees of flexion and 10.7 +/- 1.60 mm at 90 degrees of flexion improved to 2.7 +/- 1.15 mm and 2.6 +/- 0.49 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical scores and radiologic findings between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Single bundle and double bundle PCL reconstructions using the tibial inlay technique give satisfactory clinical results in patients with an isolated PCL injury, and there are no significant differences in the clinical and radiological results between the two techniques. These results suggest that it is unnecessary to perform the more technically challenging double bundle reconstruction using the tibial inlay technique in an isolated PCL injury.

Single-bundle versus double-bundle arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: what does the available evidence suggest?

The introduction of the double-bundle technique as a surgical option for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery stems from the hypothesis that replicating the double-bundle anatomy of the native ACL improves knee kinematics by supplying better rotational control. We performed a systematic review of the literature comparing double-bundle with standard single-bundle reconstruction methods. One RCT and three quasi-RCTs with a one-to two-year follow-up were included in this review. On the basis of these studies, ACL reconstruction with a double-bundle technique leads to less residual pivot-shift as assessed on manual and instrumented tests. Conflicting results exist as to whether the double-bundle technique leads to less side-to-side anterior tibial translation, and no significant differences were found regarding proprioception, flexorextensor peak torque and knee function as assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score. On the other hand, better subjective knee functionwas found in one quasi-RCT. However, there is a lack of correlation between these kinematic differences and an as yet unproven clinical effect. Uncertainties also exist regarding the mid- and long-term performances of the ACL reconstructed with a double-bundle technique. Comparison between the single-bundle and double-bundle techniques should be expanded to cover unresolved issues such as the rate of complications from a more challenging surgical technique, the risk of complicating revision surgery due to the presence of two tunnels, and the cost-effectiveness of a procedure with a higher consumption of fixation devices. The doublebundle technique should be further investigated by experienced knee surgeons in studies with higher methodological quality.