Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Single Bundle Double Bundle
Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Single Bundle Double Bundle
LIGAMENT REPAIR
SINGLE BUNDLE VS DOUBLE BUNDLE
- innervation:
- receives its innervation from tibal nerve;
- infiltrates the capsule posteriorly;
- golgi tendon receptors;
- blood supply:
- major blood supply: from middle genicular artery
- bony attachments do not provide a significant source of
blood to distal or proximal ligaments;
Femoral attachment:
ACL arises from the posteromedial corner of medial aspect of
lateral femoral condyle in the intercondylar notch;
attachment is actually an interdigitation of collagen fibers &
rigid bone thru transitional zone of fibrocartilage and
mineralized fibrocartilage;
femoral attachment of ACL is on posterior part of medial surface
of lateral condyle well posterior to longitudinal axis of the
femoral shaft;
Tibial attachment:
tibial attachment is in a fossa in front of & lateral to anterior
spine, a rather wide area from 11 mm in width to 17 mm in AP
direction;
anterior fibers go forward to level of transverse meniscal
ligament;
inserts into the interspinous area of the tibia;
Anterior & Posterior Bundles:
proprioceptive function
- ultimate tensile load: 2160 157 N
Allograft
During the 1980s a remarkable interest developed in the
use of allograft tissue for ACL reconstruction . freeze
dried grafts used after upto 18 months of preservation.
inferior results compared to autografts
PURPOSE:
This randomized 5-year study tested the
hypothesis that double bundle ACL
reconstruction with hamstring autografts and
aperture screw fixation has fewer graft
ruptures and rates of osteoarthritis (OA) and
better stability than single bundle
reconstruction.
STUDY DESIGN:
Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
METHODS:
Ninety patients
bioabsorbable screw fixation (DB group; n = 30),
bioabsorbable screw fixation (SBB group; n = 30),\
metallic screw fixation (SBM group; n = 30).
Evaluation:
clinical examination,
KT-1000 arthrometer measurement, and
International Knee Documentation Committee
(IKDC) and Lysholm knee scores.
radiographic evaluation was made by a
musculoskeletal radiologist who was unaware of the
patients' clinical and surgical data.
A single surgeon.
Preoperatively, there were no differences.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of double-bundle versus single-
bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
in adults with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
independently selected articles,.
MAIN RESULTS:
Seventeen trials .
1433 cases,
outcomes were available for a maximum of nine trials and 54% of
participants.
PURPOSE:
The aim of this study was to prospectively compare
the clinical results of single- and double-bundle ACL
reconstruction.
STUDY DESIGN:
Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence,
1.
METHODS:
Seventy patients
Outcome assessment visual analog scale (VAS) score,
(IKDC) form, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome
Score (KOOS), and KT-1000 arthrometer evaluation.
RESULTS:
minimum follow-up of 2 years.
No differences between the 2 groups were observed in
IKDC subjective score.
A statistically significant difference in favor of the DB
group was found with the VAS (P < .03). The objective
IKDC final scores showed statistically significantly more
"normal knees" in the DB group than in the SB group (P =
.03).
There was 1 stability failure in the DB group and 3 in the
SB group.
The KT-1000 arthrometer data showed a statistically
significant decrease in the average anterior tibial
translation in the DB group (1.2 mm DB vs 2.1 mm SB; P
< .03). The incidence of a residual pivot-shift glide was
14% in DB and 26% in SB (P = .08).
CONCLUSION:
In the 2-year minimum follow-up, DB ACL
reconstructions showed better VAS, anterior
knee laxity, and final objective IKDC scores
than SB. However, longer follow-up and
accurate instrumented in vivo rotational
stability assessment are needed
BACKGROUND:
No consensus has been reached on the advantages of
double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction (ACLR) over the single-bundle (SB)
technique, particularly with respect to the prevention
of osteoarthritis (OA) after ACLR.
PURPOSE:
To evaluate whether DB ACLR has any advantages in
the prevention of OA or provides better stability and
function after ACLR compared with the SB technique.
STUDY DESIGN:
Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS:
A total of 130
DB group (n = 65)
SB group (n = 65).
degree of OA based on the Kellgren-Lawrence pre and post
operation.
stability results using the Lachman and pivot-shift tests and
stress radiography.
functional outcomes based on the Lysholm knee score, Tegner
activity score, and International Knee Documentation
Committee (IKDC) subjective scale.
RESULTS:
112 patients were observed for a minimum of 4 years (DB
group, n = 52; SB group, n = 60).
Five patients (9.6%) in the DB group and 6 patients (10%) in the
SB group had more advanced OA at the final follow-up (P = .75)
Six patients (4 in the DB group and 2 in the SB group) suffered
graft failure during the follow-up and had ACL revision surgery
(P = .06).
Other comparisons no difference.
CONCLUSION:
The DB technique, compared with SB, was not
more effective in preventing OA and did not
have a more favorable failure rate.
HYPOTHESIS:
Less cartilage damage should occur in the short term
after DB ACLR than after SB ACLR.
STUDY DESIGN:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS:
52 patients (27 in the DB group and 25 in the SB group)
no chondral or meniscus injury at primary ACLR,
Cartilage status at 6 identified regions was evaluated by
second-look arthroscopy .
Other assessments at final follow-up included International
Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner and
Lysholm scores, side-to-side difference on KT-2000
arthrometer, and range of motion.
RESULTS:
The followup mean time18 months.(short term)
Both groups had cartilage lesions at the patellofemoral joint
(patella, 9 vs 13; trochlea, 5 vs 12) and the medial
compartment (1 vs 2). Significantly less severe lesions were
found in the DB group than in the SB group (mean grade,
0.33 vs 0.96; P < .05).
No significant differences were found between the 2 groups
in terms of cartilage status at other regions, IKDC score,
Lysholm score, Tegner score, KT-2000 arthrometer anterior
laxity, or range of motion.
CONCLUSION:
Chondral lesions were found postoperatively
in both DB and SB ACLR groups with
hamstring autograft. The DB ALCR led to less
cartilage damage at the femoral trochlea at
short term followup.
PURPOSE:
To prospectively assess the anterior tibial translation and
rotational kinematics of the knee joint as well as the clinical
outcome after singlebundle (SB) and doublebundle (DB)
anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
METHODS:
Forty two patients randomly underwent singlebundle (Group
SB, n = 21) or double-bundle (Group DB, n = 21) ACL
reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts.
Anterior tibial translation and rotatory laxity were measured
prior to and after fixation of the graft during reconstruction
under the guidance of a navigation system.
Clinical outcome measurements included the evaluation of
the joint stability and functional status.
RESULTS:
Stablity increases significantly in both group compared to
preoperative .
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Prospective comparative study, Level II.
BACKGROUND:
Biomechanical differences between anatomical
double-bundle and central single-bundle anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction using the same graft
tissue have not been defined.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study was to compare these
reconstructions in their ability to restore native knee
kinematics during a reproducible Lachman and pivot-
shift examination.
STUDY DESIGN:
Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS:
Using a computer-assisted navigation system,
10 paired knees
Lachman and mechanized pivot-shift examination
3D motion path tracking.
RESULTS:
A significant difference in anterior translation was
seen with Lachman examination
CLINICAL RELEVANCE:
A DB-ACLR may be a favorable construct for
restoration of knee kinematics in the at risk knee
with associated meniscal injuries and/or
significant pivot shift on preoperative
examination.
PURPOSE:
to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic
anatomical double bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament
(ACL) reconstruction with either selective anteromedial (AM)
or posterolateral (PL) bundle reconstruction while
preserving a relatively healthy ACL bundle.
CONCLUSION:
Selective bundle reconstruction in partial ACL
tears offers comparable clinical results to DB
reconstruction in complete ACL tears
Double bundle repair should be reserved for
high demand patients such as contact sports
persons,athletes considering it provides
better stability,less failures and revisions.
however for general population single bundle
repair is sufficient to get good to excellent
functional outcome in majority of cases.
Acta Orthop. Belgium., 2014, 80, 336-347
The Open Sports Medicine Journal,2010, 4, 51-
57 Damien P. Byrne, Kevin J. Mulhall and Joseph
F. Baker Orthopaedic Research and Innovation
Foundation, Sports Surgery Clinic, Santry, Dublin,
Ireland.
Atlas of Human Anatomy, Sixth Edition- Frank H.
Netter, M.D
Apleys System of Orthopaedics and Fractures
9th Ed
Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics 12th
Pubmed central.