No difference was found between double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions in terms of osteoarthritis at 15-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine whether the grade of osteoarthritis (OA) is higher with single-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The hypothesis was that there will be no difference in the grade of OA between the techniques. METHODS: This study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a follow-up period of 15 years. Patients were randomly assigned to either the SB group (n = 78) or the DB group (n = 75). Surgical techniques were anatomic, and the rehabilitation protocol was standardised. Evaluation included Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) difference and absolute OA results. OA was defined as a KL grade of at least 2. RESULTS: At 15-year follow-up, information was available on 101 patients (66%), of whom 56 (37%) were accepted in the final statistical analysis. No difference was found between the SB and DB techniques in terms of KL difference or absolute OA results. Significantly less OA was found in the contralateral knee (21%) than in the reconstructed knee (59%) (p < 0.001). Patients with meniscal tears who underwent partial meniscal resection during ACL reconstruction had a significantly higher rate of OA changes (82%) compared with patients with isolated ACL tears (33%) (p < 0.001). A longer delay between initial injury and surgery did not appear to affect the severity of the KL classification. CONCLUSION: At 15-year follow-up, no difference was found between the DB and SB techniques in terms of OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

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.

One-stage anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery after primary failed double-bundle reconstruction: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery after failed double-bundle (DB) reconstruction is a challenging procedure. This study aimed to systematically review the research on ACL revision surgery following failed DB reconstruction, providing an overview on indications, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes and potential pitfalls occurring while performing this therapeutic approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature published from exception to February 2023 was searched in the Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases. Studies in English reporting on patients who underwent ACL revision surgery after prior failed DB reconstruction were considered. Review articles and expert opinion or editorial pieces were excluded. Outcomes of interest included indications and pre-operative planning, surgical technique and associated procedures, type of revision surgery (either one- or two-stage), graft choice, clinical and functional outcomes, rate of complications, failure rate. RESULTS: Overall, 4 studies met all the inclusion criteria for this review. All were published between 2007 and 2020. The search resulted in two retrospective comparative studies, one case series, and one case report. Average follow-up periods ranged from 24 to 45 months. From these studies, 66 patients (66 knees) were identified. One-stage revision surgery was performed in 64 on 66 patients (97%) with pathologic laxity following DB ACL reconstruction. Most frequently reported outcome was Lysholm score in five studies: average postoperative Lysholm score ranged from 90.5 to 91.0 while Tegner activity level ranged from 5.6 to 7.0. In 4 patients (6%) re-revision surgery was performed due to graft re-rupture. CONCLUSIONS: One-stage ACL revision surgery following DB ACL reconstruction appears feasible providing satisfying outcomes and limited complications. The literature on this subject is limited and further comparative studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed, as high-level studies on this topic are still lacking.

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.

Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Clinical Outcomes Consensus Group.

A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect of establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. To establish a standardized assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, in June 2019. The aim was to establish a consensus on what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used, and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. The group reached consensus on 9 statements by using a modified Delphi method. In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into 4 robust categories: early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment after ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained reinjuries, validated knee-specific PROs, and health-related quality of life questionnaires. In the midterm to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35-65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, -4.3; 95% CI, -11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (-3.2; -8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (-0.4; -1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Study With 10-Year Results.

BACKGROUND: A long-term follow-up comparing double-bundle and single-bundle techniques for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has not been reported before. HYPOTHESIS: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction may have fewer graft ruptures, lower rates of osteoarthritis (OA), and better stability than single-bundle reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Ninety patients were randomized for double-bundle ACL reconstruction with bioabsorbable screw fixation (DB group; n = 30), single-bundle ACL reconstruction with bioabsorbable screw fixation (SBB group; n = 30), and single-bundle ACL reconstruction with metallic screw fixation (SBM group; n = 30). Evaluation methods consisted of a clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometer measurements, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm knee scores, and a radiographic examination of both the operated and contralateral knees. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (90%) were available at the 10-year follow-up. Eleven patients (1 in the DB group, 7 in the SBB group, and 3 in the SBM group) had a graft failure during the follow-up and went on to undergo revision ACL surgery ( P = .043). In the remaining 70 patients at 10 years, no significant group differences were found in the pivot-shift test findings, KT-1000 arthrometer measurements, or knee scores. The most OA findings were found in the medial compartment of the knee, with 38% of the patients in the operated knee and 28% of the patients in the contralateral nonoperated knee. However, no significant group difference was found. The most severe OA changes were in the patients who had the longest delay from the primary injury to ACL reconstruction ( P = .047) and in the patients who underwent partial meniscal resection at the time of ACL reconstruction ( P = .024). CONCLUSION: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction resulted in significantly fewer graft failures than single-bundle ACL reconstruction during the follow-up. Knee stability and OA rates were similar at 10 years. The most severe OA changes were found in the patients who had the longest delay from the primary injury to ACL reconstruction and in the patients who underwent partial meniscal resection at the time of ACL reconstruction.

Femoral and Tibial Tunnel Diameter and Bioabsorbable Screw Findings After Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction in 5-Year Clinical and MRI Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Tunnel enlargement is frequently seen in short-term follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). According to new evidence, tunnel enlargement may be followed by tunnel narrowing, but the long-term evolution of the tunnels is currently unknown. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The hypothesis was that tunnel enlargement is followed by tunnel narrowing caused by ossification as seen in follow-up using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ossification pattern of the tunnels, the communication of the 2 femoral and 2 tibial tunnels, and screw absorption findings in MRI. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Thirty-one patients underwent anatomic double-bundle ACLR with hamstring grafts and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation and were followed with MRI and clinical evaluation at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. RESULTS: The mean tunnel enlargement at 2 years was 58% and reduced to 46% at 5 years. Tunnel ossification resulted in evenly narrowed tunnels in 44%, in conical tunnels in 48%, and fully ossified tunnels in 8%. Tunnel communication increased from 13% to 23% in the femur and from 19% to 23% in the tibia between 2 and 5 years and was not associated with knee laxity. At 5 years, 54% of the screws were not visible, with 35% of the screws replaced by a cyst and 19% fully ossified. Tunnel cysts were not associated with worse patient-reported outcomes or knee laxity. Patients with a tibial anteromedial tunnel cyst had higher Lysholm scores than patients without a cyst (93 and 84, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Tunnel enlargement was followed by tunnel narrowing in 5-year follow-up after double-bundle ACLR. Tunnel communication and tunnel cysts were frequent MRI findings and not associated with adverse clinical evaluation results.

Tunnel communication and increased graft signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the association between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of tunnel communication and increased graft signal intensity (SI) and clinical evaluation of knee stability and outcome after double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients were evaluated with 1.5 T MRI and with clinical evaluation 2 years after DB ACL reconstruction. The MRI finding of tunnel communication was defined as the absence of a bony bridge between the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) tunnels. The SI of the intra-articular portion of both grafts was analyzed on proton-density (PD)-weighted and T2-weighted images and graded on a scale, with I being a normal SI similar to that of the posterior cruciate ligament, II being > 50% of the graft having a normal SI, and III being < 50% of the graft having a normal SI. The clinical evaluation of knee stability and function included KT-1,000 arthrometric side-to-side difference, pivot shift test, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm knee evaluation scores. The association between the MRI findings and the clinical findings was calculated using the Fisher exact test and the 2-tailed t test. RESULTS: Tunnel communication was seen in the femur in 10% of patients and in the tibia in 27% of patients. Increased graft SI was seen in 15% of the AM grafts and 59% of the PL grafts. No statistically significant association (P < .05) between the MRI findings of tunnel communication or increased graft SI and knee laxity was found. CONCLUSIONS: The MRI findings of tunnel communication or increased graft SI were not associated with knee laxity 2 years after DB ACL reconstruction. Tibial tunnel communication was associated with increased range of movement with flexion, and increased AM graft SI was associated with reduced range of flexion in the knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Effect of tunnel placements on clinical and magnetic resonance imaging findings 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the double-bundle technique.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study reported here was to find out if the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of a reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) have an association. Our hypothesis, which was based on the different functions of the ACL bundles, was that the visibility of the anteromedial graft would have an impact on anteroposterior stability, and the visibility of the posterolateral graft on rotational stability of the knee. METHODS: This study is a level II, prospective clinical and MRI study (NCT02000258). The study involved 75 patients. One experienced orthopedic surgeon performed all double-bundle ACL reconstructions. Two independent examiners made the clinical examinations at 2-year follow-up: clinical examination of the knee; KT-1000, International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm knee evaluation scores; and International Knee Documentation Committee functional score. The MRI evaluations were made by two musculoskeletal radiologists separately, and the means of these measurements were used. RESULTS: We found that the location of the graft in the tibia had an impact on the MRI visibility of the graft at 2-year follow-up. There were significantly more partially or totally invisible grafts if the insertion of the graft was more anterior in the tibia. No association was found between the clinical results and the graft locations. CONCLUSION: Anterior graft location in the tibia can cause graft invisibility in the MRI 2 years after ACL reconstruction, but this has no effect on the clinical recovery of the patient.

[Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture]. / Eturistisiderepeämän hoito.

Anterior cruciate ligament rupture of the knee is a common knee injury associated with sports and exercise. The injury typically arises when the foot is tightly locked against the floor or ground, whereby a sudden change of direction combined with the slowed motion causes a rotary motion of the upper part of the tibia and a force rupturing the cruciate ligament. Approximately 30% of the injuries take place during a situation of direct contact. The instability of the knee due to the rupture may be strongly invalidizing. In such case surgical therapy is required, if appropriate conservative treatment does not lead to a good result.

MRI evaluation of the four tunnels of double-bundle ACL reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The double-bundle (DB) reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has gained popularity in recent years. The positioning of anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) tunnels is aimed at the anatomic femoral and tibial attachments of AM and PL bundles of the native ACL. PURPOSE: To use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the tunnel locations and tunnel findings in DB ACL reconstruction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-six patients with DB ACL reconstruction were evaluated with 1.5-T MRI 2 years postoperatively. Two musculoskeletal radiologists separately measured the locations and the diameters of the tunnels. Inter-observer agreements were estimated according to the method of Bland and Altman. RESULTS: In the femur, the mean AM tunnel location was 32% from the proximal condylar surface and 18% from the notch roof. The mean PL tunnel location was 42% and 43%, respectively. In the tibia, the mean AM tunnel location was 54% of the lateral-to-medial tibial width and 42% of the anterior-to-posterior tibial depth. The mean PL tunnel location was 54% and 56%, respectively. The mean tunnel enlargement was 3.8 mm (56%). Tunnel communication was seen in seven patients (11%) in the femur and in 19 patients (29%) in the tibia. Greater femoral AM tunnel distance from the proximal condylar surface was associated with more tunnel enlargement, and more posterior tibial PL tunnel location was associated with less tunnel enlargement. CONCLUSION: The tunnel locations of DB ACL reconstruction can be evaluated with MRI. Tunnel location was associated with tunnel enlargement that in turn was associated with tunnel communication.

Comparison of tunnel placements and clinical results of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction before and after starting the use of double-bundle technique.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the locations of the grafts in single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have changed to more anatomical as the double-bundle (DB) method has become more familiar. METHODS: Operation using anteromedial (not transtibial) portal and freehand technique [Group A (N = 25) in 2003, Group B (N = 25) in 2007]. The evaluation methods preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up (two blinded examiners): clinical examination, stability measurement (KT-1000 arthrometer), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the Lysholm knee scores. A musculoskeletal radiologist made tunnel measurements from the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: The average tunnel placement in the femoral side: from Blumensaat's line 27 % (Group A) and 26 % (Group B), from the posterior edge of the femur 32 % (Group A) and 29 % (Group B). The average tunnel placement in the tibial side: from the anterior edge 45 % (Group A) and 45 % (Group B), from the lateral side 57 % (Group A) and 54 % (Group B) (P = 0.024). Graft failures ending up to revision ACL surgery: 4 (Group A) and 0 (Group B) (P = 0.045). Operation time reduced 19 min (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Tunnel placement at the femoral side was already very low (anatomical) in patients operated in 2003. No significant difference was found when comparing to the patients operated in 2007. There were significantly more graft failures in the Group A, suggesting that the use of the DB method in ACL surgery in 2007 may have also improved the technique and results of the SB ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative study, Level II.

Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

According to the 20 prospective, randomized studies found from the English literature and included into this review, 6 studies (30%) did not find any significant differences in the clinical results between double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. However, 14 studies (70%) reported significantly better results with the double-bundle technique than with the single-bundle technique. In addition, none of the studies found that the single-bundle technique had better results in any of these evaluations than the double-bundle technique.

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a review of literature.

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been under intensive discussion and debate, although the anatomy of this ligament was resolved thoroughly almost 200 years ago. The ACL consist of two bundles, anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL). The conventional single-bundle method reconstructs the AM bundle only, while the modern double-bundle technique recreates both bundles for their anatomical sites. METHODS: An English language literature search was undertaken over the years 2000-2012 for ACL reconstruction, double-bundle versus single bundle technique. The search found 14 RCTs and two meta-analyses published to date. RESULTS: Two of the 14 studies (14 %) showed no difference between the two reconstruction methods while the remaining majority (12 trials, 86 %) concluded that the DB technique was better than the SB method. After the DB reconstruction, rotational stability of the knee was better in seven studies (50 %) and anteroposterior stability in six (43 %). No study spoke for the single-bundle technique. In addition, with the double-bundle technique knee scores were reported to be better in five (36 %) studies, and three trials (21 %) revealed less reoperations in the double-bundle group. CONCLUSIONS: The double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique was reported to have better or at least the same results as the conventional single-bundle method-even at a five-year follow-up. However, the majority of these studies had a rather short follow-up, and thus, longer studies are needed to confirm the true long-term results of ACL surgery. Long follow-up periods are also needed to find out whether double-bundle ACL reconstruction can eventually prevent knee osteoarthritis.

Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study with 5-year results.

BACKGROUND: Surgical technique is essential in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. 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 were randomized: double-bundle ACL reconstruction with bioabsorbable screw fixation (DB group; n = 30), single-bundle ACL reconstruction with bioabsorbable screw fixation (SBB group; n = 30), and single-bundle ACL reconstruction with metallic screw fixation (SBM group; n = 30). The following evaluation methods were used: clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometer measurement, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm knee scores. Additionally, radiographic evaluation was made by a musculoskeletal radiologist who was unaware of the patients' clinical and surgical data. A single orthopaedic surgeon performed all the operations, and clinical follow-up assessments were made in a blinded manner by an independent examiner. RESULTS: Preoperatively, there were no differences between the groups. Eleven patients (7 in the SBB group, 3 in the SBM group, and 1 in the DB group) had a graft failure during the follow-up and went on to ACL revision surgery (P < .043). Of the remaining 79 patients, a 5-year follow-up was performed for 65 patients (20 in the DB group, 21 in the SBB group, and 24 in the SBM group) who had their grafts intact. At 5 years, there was no statistically significant difference in the pivot-shift or KT-1000 arthrometer tests. In the DB group, 20% of the patients had OA in the medial femorotibial compartment and 10% in the lateral compartment, while the corresponding figures were 33% and 18% in the single-bundle groups, again an insignificant finding. Further, no significant group differences were found in the knee scores. CONCLUSION: The double-bundle surgery resulted in significantly fewer graft failures and subsequent revision ACL surgery than the single-bundle surgeries during the 5-year follow-up. Knee stability and OA rates were similar at 5 years. In view of the size of the groups, some caution should be exercised when interpreting the lack of difference in the secondary outcomes.

Validation of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) for patients with a degenerative meniscal tear: a meniscal pathology-specific quality-of-life index.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is the most common orthopaedic procedure and is often carried out to treat a degenerative meniscal lesion. The purpose of the present study was to determine the psychometric properties of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) for patients with an arthroscopically verified degenerative meniscal tear. METHODS: Four hundred and eighty-five patients with an arthroscopically verified degenerative meniscal tear were included. Two groups of patients were formed: one consisted of 385 patients for the purpose of psychometric testing of the WOMET and the other consisted of 100 patients for the assessment of criterion validity. The reliability of the WOMET questionnaire was assessed by determining both internal consistency and test-retest repeatability; for the latter, a subgroup of forty patients completed the form two weeks preoperatively and again on the day of the operation. Validity assessment included determination of content validity (floor and ceiling effects), criterion validity (completion of the WOMET, the Lysholm knee score, and a generic quality-of-life questionnaire by a group of 100 patients), and construct validity (hypothesis testing). Finally, the responsiveness of the WOMET was determined with two successive assessments (on the day of surgery and six months postoperatively). RESULTS: The WOMET showed acceptable internal consistency, test-retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, criterion validity (agreement with both Lysholm and 15-D scores), and construct validity (all hypotheses were significant). The WOMET was also found to be responsive to change. CONCLUSION: The WOMET score demonstrated acceptable psychometric performance as a patient-administered outcome measure for patients with an arthroscopically verified degenerative meniscal tear.

MRI of double-bundle ACL reconstruction: evaluation of graft findings.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six patients with DB ACL reconstruction were evaluated with MRI 2 years postoperatively. Graft thickness was measured separately by two musculoskeletal radiologists. The MRI findings of graft disruption, signal intensity (SI) changes, cystic degeneration, arthrofibrosis, and impingement were analyzed. The statistical significance of the association between MRI findings was calculated. RESULTS: The mean anteromedial (AM) graft thickness was reduced 9% and the mean posterolateral (PL) graft thickness was reduced 18% from the original graft thickness. Disruption was seen in 3% of AM grafts and 6% of PL grafts and a partial tear in 8 and 23%, respectively. Both grafts were disrupted in 3% of patients. Increased SI was seen in 14% of intact AM grafts and in 60% of partially torn AM grafts (p = 0.032). In PL grafts the increased SI was seen in 51% of the intact grafts and in 93% of the partially torn grafts (p = 0.005). Cystic degeneration was seen in 8% of AM grafts and in 5% of PL grafts. Diffuse arthrofibrosis was seen in 5% of patients and a localized cyclops lesion in 3% of patients. Impingement of the AM graft was seen in 8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Both grafts were disrupted in 3% of patients. Also, the frequencies of other complications were low. The use of orthogonal sequences in the evaluation of the PL graft SI seems to cause volume-averaging artefacts.

Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: randomized clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study with 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: One aspect of the debate over the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament is whether it should be carried out with the single-bundle or double-bundle technique. HYPOTHESIS: The double-bundle technique results in fewer graft failures than the single-bundle technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 153 patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autografts using aperture interference screw fixation: single-bundle technique (SB group, n = 78) and double-bundle technique (DB group, n = 75). The evaluation methods were clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometric measurement, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Lysholm knee scores, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. All of the operations were performed by 1 experienced orthopaedic surgeon, and all clinical assessments were made by 2 blinded and independent examiners. A musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to the clinical data made the MRI interpretation. RESULTS: There were no differences between the study groups preoperatively. Ninety percent of patients (n = 138) were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up (range, 24-37 months). Eight patients (7 in the SB group and 1 in the DB group) had graft failure during the follow-up and had anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery (P = .04). In addition, 7 patients (5 in the SB group and 2 in the DB group) had an invisible graft on the MRI assessment at the 2-year follow-up. Also, the anteromedial bundle was partially invisible in 2 patients and the posterolateral bundle in 9 patients. Together, the total number of failures and invisible grafts were significantly higher in the SB group (12 patients, 15%) than the DB group (3 patients, 4%) (P = .024). No significant group differences were found in the knee scores or stability evaluations at the follow-up. CONCLUSION: This 2-year randomized trial showed that the revision rate of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was significantly lower with the double-bundle technique than that with the single-bundle technique. However, additional years of follow-up are needed to reveal the long-term results.