Single-bundle ACL combined with ALL reconstruction yields comparable outcomes in patients with varied anatomical risk factors for ACL graft failure.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure is influenced by factors such as meniscal tears and tibial plateau slope. Combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction has reduced failure rates; however, its efficacy in high-risk patients remains unclear. This study hypothesized that combined ACL and ALL reconstruction would yield similar clinical outcomes in patients with varying risks of ACL failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 76 patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction combined with ALL reconstruction between June 2018 and June 2021 were included. The medial tibial slope (MTS), lateral tibial slope (LTS), and anterior tibial translation (ATT) were measured using magnetic resonance imaging and plain radiography of the knee joint. The meniscal lesions were assessed during surgery. Preoperative clinical assessments and final follow-up were conducted using patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation, Lysholm knee scoring scale, and Tegner Activity scale. PROMs were collected at least two years postoperatively. RESULTS: The average follow-up was 32.5 ± 7.4 months. There were no significant differences in postoperative IKDC score, Lysholm score, or Tegner activity score between patients with or without medial meniscus injury (p = 0.155, 0.914, and 0.042, respectively), with or without lateral meniscus injury (p = 0.737, 0.569, and 0.942, respectively), medial tibial slope > 12° or ≤ 12° (p = 0.290, 0.496, and 0.988, respectively), or lateral tibial slope > 7.4° or ≤ 7.4° (p = 0.213, 0.625, and 0.922, respectively). No significant correlations were found between anterior tibial translation and postoperative IKDC (R = -0.058, p = 0.365), Lysholm (R = -0.017, p = 0.459), or Tegner activity scores (R = -0.147, p = 0.189). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that single-bundle ACL reconstruction combined with ALL reconstruction provides reliable and comparable clinical outcomes in patients with high-risk factors for ACL graft failure, such as increased tibial slope or meniscal injury. Our results suggest that the indications for ALL reconstruction may be expanded to include patients with a high tibial slope or meniscal injury, because these factors have been shown to contribute to increased rotational instability and high rates of ACL graft failure. Future prospective randomized controlled trials with large patient cohorts and long follow-up periods are needed to validate these findings and establish clear guidelines for patient selection and surgical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

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.

Proprioceptive and clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant tissue preservation technique: A comparison according to the preserved tissue length.

BACKGROUND: No consensus is obtained regarding the effects of remnant-preserving ACL reconstruction on long-term clinical and proprioceptive outcomes. This study aimed to compare proprioceptive and clinical outcomes of the knee joint after ACL reconstruction with two different lengths of preserved remnant tissue. METHODS: This study included 61 patients who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction with remnant preservation method using hamstring autograft, divided into two groups according to the length of the remnant tissue. Group ≤33% included subjects with equal and less than 1/3 of the remnant preserved (n = 30) and group >33% included subjects with more than 1/3 of the remnant preserved (n = 31). Proprioception was evaluated at 20°, 50°, and 70° knee angles. Clinical outcome measures included Tegner activity scale, Lysholm knee score, single-leg-hop test, and muscle strength of quadriceps femoris and hamstring muscles which was evaluated using Biodex dynamometer. Anterior laxity was determined with a KT2000 arthrometer. A statistical comparison of the assessments was performed. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time after surgery were 28.33 and 33.67 months for group ≤33% and >33%, respectively. No significant differences were detected for Lysholm and Tegner scores between the groups (p > 0.05). Additionally, proprioception and muscle strength values displayed similarity between the groups (p > 0.05). The length of the remnant tissue did not affect post-operative knee stability (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent remnant-preserving ACL reconstruction obtained similar proprioceptive function, muscle strength, anterior stability, and clinical results regardless of the amount of preserved tissue length at short-term assessment.

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.

Clinical efficacy of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To compare the functional and clinical outcomes of knee joints in patients over a 10-year period following posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction with single-bundle versus double-bundle. METHODS: Patients who underwent PCL reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the surgical approach, they were divided into the single-bundle reconstruction group and the double-bundle reconstruction group. Preoperative and postoperative Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKCD) score, and Tegner activity score were evaluated, and the stability of the joints was assessed using KT-2000 arthrometer. Radiographs were taken at the final follow-up to evaluate the progression of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients were included in the analysis: 26 in the double-bundle group and 35 in the single-bundle group. Baseline data were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in preoperative Lysholm, IKDC score, and Tegner activity score. Postoperatively, these scores were significantly higher at two and ten years follow-up (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in side-to-side differences (SSD) at 30° and 90° of knee flexion preoperatively between the groups (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, SSD decreased significantly at the two year and ten year follow-up (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). For osteoarthritis progression, there were four cases of Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ II in the single-bundle group and three cases in the double-bundle group, with no significant difference in the progression of osteoarthritis between the groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both single-bundle and double-bundle reconstructions for PCL result in good joint stability and mobility, with similar progression of osteoarthritis in long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Safety and Early Return to Sports for Early ACL Reconstruction in Young Athletes: A Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Although previous reports have shown that early anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of stiffness, recommendations for delayed surgery are based on outdated literature. The advent of arthroscopic surgery and accelerated rehabilitation protocols warrants a reexamination of the optimal surgical timing. The purpose of this study was to investigate complications during early ACL reconstruction after injury in young athletes. Materials and Methods: A total of 87 patients (27 males and 60 females) were included in this study. Patients who underwent anatomic ACL reconstruction using hamstring autografts were evaluated. Patients under 25 years of age with a Tegner activity score greater than 6 were included and classified into three groups according to the time from injury to surgical treatment: one week from injury to surgery (early group), three to six weeks from injury to surgery (normal group), and three to six months from injury to surgery (delayed group). We evaluated the rates of various complications such as graft rupture, contralateral injury, the need for manipulation for loss of ROM, infection, and fracture around the knee up to 2 years postoperatively. In addition, we investigated postoperative muscle strength, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and period of the return to sport from injury. Results: Patients in the delayed group were younger than those in the other groups (p = 0.009). Patients in the early group had a lower range of motion than those in the other groups preoperationly. However, the 1-month postoperative range of motion was comparable between groups. Patients in the early group had greater postoperative Tegner activity scores than those in the other groups. The period of return to sport from injury in the delayed group was longer than in the other groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative complication rate, muscle strength, or Lysholm score. Conclusions: ACL reconstruction performed 1 week from injury to surgery in young athletic patients indicated the rate of complications were not significantly different among the groups. Early ACL reconstruction with no postoperative complications may be related to early return to sports and a high level of sports.

Anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction moderately improved tegner scores over the long-term: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of anatomical double-bundle (DB) versus single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in skeletally mature patients with ACL injuries. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 7, 2022 were screened for randomized controlled trials. The Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Checklist was used to categorize studies as anatomic. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, with pooled results being summarized using mean difference (MD). Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. RESULTS: A search of 1371 unique articles yielded eight eligible trials, representing 735 patients (360 DB, 375 SB) with mean (SD) age of 28.5 (2.86) years and follow-up of 52.1 (36.2) months. Most trials had moderate to low RoB. Overall, DB was not significantly better than SB on Lysholm scores (MD = 0.52, 95% CI, - 1.80-2.85, p = 0.66; moderate certainty) or subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (MD = - 0.40, 95% CI, - 4.35-3.55, p = 0.84; moderate certainty). Tegner scores were significantly higher in SB than DB in the intermediate term (MD = - 0.72, 95% CI, - 1.10 to - 0.34, p = 0.0002; high certainty), while significantly higher in DB relative to SB in the long-term (MD = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.02-1.03, p = 0.04; high certainty). CONCLUSION: DB ACL reconstruction significantly improves Tegner scores relative to SB ACL reconstruction over the long-term (t ≥ 5 years). Intermediate term Tegner scores favour SB reconstruction. In both durations, there was no clinically significant difference based on the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference of 1.0 point. There were also no significant differences in IKDC or Lysholm scores. Surgeons should consider anatomical DB ACL reconstruction as a result of long-term improvement in patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

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.

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction versus anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a comparative study of clinical outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies showed increasing evidences of anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction that proves to be more superior to the previous double-bundle (DB) ACLR technique especially in improving knee stability in biomechanic studies. However to date, there have been no studies evaluating the functional outcome of DB-ACLR vs single-bundle (SB) with ALL in ACLR. METHODS: A total of 138 patients with ACL deficient knee were enrolled to the study. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction (DB-ACLR) was performed in 75 patients and single-bundle ACL reconstruction with anterolateral ligament reconstruction (SB + ALL) ACLR was performed in 63 patients. Surgical outcomes were compared with The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) and the Kujala score at the 3rd, 6th and 9th month post-operative. RESULTS: The IKDC score in the 3rd and 6th month was superior in the SB + ALL group compared to the DB group. However, this difference was not statistically significant. In the meantime, there were no statistically significant difference between the Kujala Score at the 3rd, 6th, and 9th months consecutively. There were no statistically significant differences in the functional outcomes of DB-ACLR and SB + ALL groups at the 3rd, 6th, and 9th months post-operative period. CONCLUSION: The functional outcome comparison showed non-superiority of SB + ALL group compared to the DB-ACLR group. The patellar pain was less found in DB-ACLR group at 6- and 9-months post-operative period.

Significant race and gender differences in anterior cruciate ligament tibial footprint location: a 3D-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to identify potential race- or gender-specific differences in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tibial footprint location from the tibia anatomical coordinate system (tACS) origin, investigate the distances from the tibial footprint to the anterior root of the lateral meniscus (ARLM) and the medial tibial spine (MTS), determine how reliable the ARLM and MTS can be in locating the ACL tibial footprint, and assess the risk of iatrogenic ARLM injuries caused by using reamers with various diameters (7-10 mm). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance images of 91 Chinese and 91 Caucasian subjects were used for the reconstruction of three-dimensional (3D) tibial and ACL tibial footprint models. The anatomical coordinate system was applied to reflect the anatomical locations of scanned samples. RESULTS: The average anteroposterior (A/P) tibial footprint location was 17.1 ± 2.3 mm and 20.0 ± 3.4 mm in Chinese and Caucasians, respectively (P < .001). The average mediolateral (M/L) tibial footprint location was 34.2 ± 2.4 mm and 37.4 ± 3.6 mm in Chinese and Caucasians, respectively (P < .001). The average difference between men and women was 2 mm in Chinese and 3.1 mm in Caucasians. The safe zone for tibial tunnel reaming to avoid ARLM injury was 2.2 mm and 1.9 mm away from the central tibial footprint in the Chinese and Caucasians, respectively. The probability of damaging the ARLM by using reamers with various diameters ranged from 0% for Chinese males with a 7 mm reamer to 30% in Caucasian females with a 10 mm reamer. CONCLUSIONS: The significant race- and gender-specific differences in the ACL tibial footprint should be taken in consideration during anatomic ACL reconstruction. The ARLM and MTS are reliable intraoperative landmarks for identifying the tibial ACL footprint. Caucasians and females might be more prone to iatrogenic ARLM injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, cohort study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the ethical research committee of the General Hospital of Southern Theater Command of PLA under the code: [2019] No.10.

Effects of modified trans-tibial versus trans-portal technique on stress patterns around the femoral tunnel in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction with different knee flexion angles using finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft trajectories in the distal femur would have different effects on stress generated within the distal femur around the femoral tunnel during knee motion. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine differences in stress patterns around the femoral tunnel created by trans-portal (TP) vs. modified trans-tibial (TT) technique in anatomical ACL reconstruction at different knee flexion angles. METHODS: Twelve male subjects' right knees were scanned with a high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scanner (slice thickness: 1 mm) at four different knee flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°). Three-dimensional (3D) models of these four different flexion angles were created and manipulated with several modelling programs. For the TP group, the virtual femoral tunnelling procedure was performed in a 135° flexion model from the low far anteromedial (AM) portal. For the modified TT group, the same knee models were drilled through the modified TT technique at 90° of flexion separately. Virtual grafts under tension of 40 N were put into corresponding bone tunnel and fixed at the outer aperture of femoral tunnels to simulate the suspensory fixation, followed by fixation of the grafts at the middle of tibial tunnels in the 0° knee flexion models. Finally, the models were exported to a finite element analysis package and analysed using ABAQUS/Explicit code (ABAQUS, USA) to monitor the stress occurring at the node where stress distribution occurred most significantly in the femoral bone around the bone tunnel. RESULTS: In general, both groups showed a high stress distribution in bony structures around inner and outer orifices of the femoral tunnel. Mean maximal stresses occurring at the lateral femoral condyle around the inner orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were found to be significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles except 90° of flexion. Mean maximal stresses monitored around the outer orifice of the femoral tunnel in the TP group were also significantly greater than those in the modified TT group at all flexion angles. CONCLUSIONS: Different tunnelling technologies could yield different stress patterns in the lateral femoral condyle around the femoral tunnel. During knee motion, higher stresses were noticed in the TP group than in the modified TT group, especially around inner and outer orifices of the tunnel. Position of the tunnel after reconstruction with the TP technique can have a greater effect on the stress increase in the femur compared to that with the modified TT technique.

Randomized controlled trial of all-inside and standard single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with functional, MRI-based graft maturity and patient-reported outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: All-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a novel technique that has gained attention due to its minimally invasive and graft-saving properties. However, studies comparing MRI-based graft maturity between all-inside and standard ACLR are lacking. PURPOSE: This study focused on the functional, knee laxity, and MRI-based graft maturity characteristics of all-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Fifty-four patients were randomly assigned to an all-inside reconstruction group (n = 27) or standard reconstruction group (n = 27). Using the same rehabilitation strategy. The Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Lysholm scores were recorded at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 to assess functional recovery. MRI was conducted to measure the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the intra-articular graft to assess the maturity. A higher SNQ indicates lower graft maturity. Knee laxity was assessed using GNRB arthrometer at the postoperative month 12. RESULTS: The graft SNQ of the all-inside group was significantly higher than that of the standard group at postoperative month 6 (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in graft SNQ between the two groups at postoperative months 3 and 12 (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited the highest SNQ in the middle region of the graft, followed by the proximal region, and the distal region. Functional scores improved significantly for both groups and had no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The knee laxity was higher in the all-inside group (p < 0.05) at postoperative month 12. There was no correlation between the functional scores and graft maturity in both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR show good functional outcomes; however, knee laxity was relatively higher in the all-inside ACLR group than in the standard ACLR group. Moreover, both techniques exhibited poor maturity in the middle graft region and the best in the distal region. Graft maturity with all-inside ACLR is inferior to that with standard ACLR in the early postoperative stages. There is no correlation between knee function and graft maturity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration numbers: ChiCTR1800018543 . Date of registration: 09/23/2018.

Single and double bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yield comparable clinical and functional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and compare the functional and objective outcomes after single-bundle (SB) vs. double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR). Where possible to pool outcomes and arrive at summary estimates of treatment effect for DB PCLR vs. SB PCLR via an embedded meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) literature search identified 13 eligible studies evaluating clinical outcomes of both techniques for PCLR. Clinical outcome measures included in the meta-analysis were functional outcomes (Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale) and objective measurements of posterior laxity of the operated knee (arthrometer and stress radiographs). RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 603 patients. Three hundred and fifteen patients were treated with SB and two hundred and eighty-eight patients with DB PCLR. There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCLR in postoperative functional Lysholm Scores (CI [- 0.18, 0.17]), Tegner Activity Scales (CI [- 0.32, 0.12]) and IKDC objective grades (CI [- 0.13, 1.17]). Regarding posterior stability using KT-1000 and Kneelax III arthrometer measurements, there were no differences between the SB and DB group. However, double-bundle reconstruction provided better objective outcome of measurement of posterior laxity (CI [0.02, 0.46]) when measured with Telos stress radiography. CONCLUSION: A systematic review was conducted to identify current best evidence pertaining to DB and SB PCLR. An embedded meta-analysis arrived at similar summary estimates of treatment effect for motion, stability and overall function for both techniques. There is no demonstrable clinically relevant difference between techniques based on the currently available evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Superior results of return to sport after double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young active patients.

PURPOSE: To compare return to sport and clinical results in young active patients who underwent anatomic single-bundle (SB) versus double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Young active patients undergoing SB or DB ACLR from 2017 to 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome measures were the rate and time to return to sports, with secondary measures including the Lachman test, pivot shift test, Lysholm scores, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores and graft rupture. RESULTS: The study included a total of 90 patients (DB group, 42; SB group, 48), with a mean follow-up of 27.1 ± 6.1 months. Young active patients who underwent DB ACLR had a higher rate of return to pivoting sports than those who underwent SB ACLR (HR = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4, 4.1; p = 0.013). The DB group returned to pivoting sports at a mean ± SD of 11.0 ± 2.9 months compared with 12.7 ± 2.7 months in the SB group (p = 0.01). There was one traumatic failure in the SB group and one contralateral ACL rupture in the DB group. There was no significant difference in the rate and time to return to running, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, Lysholm or IKDC scores in either group. CONCLUSION: Both anatomical SB and DB techniques achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes. DB techniques led to superior performance of return to pivoting sports but nonsignificant differences in time and rate of return to running, passive stability measurement, subjective knee function outcome and graft rupture rate in both groups at the 2-year follow-up. The DB ACLR should be considered a viable option to treat young patients with high activity demands. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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.

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.

Clinical study of anatomical ACL reconstruction using a rounded rectangular dilator.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was that to compare clinical results between the rounded rectangular femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction (RFTR) and the conventional round femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon. The hypothesis was that ACL reconstruction performed using the rounded rectangular dilator technique was better than that performed using the conventional round femoral tunnel technique in terms of clinical results and bone tunnel enlargement. METHODS: We conducted retrospective study. After exclusions, 40 patients were included in the conventional anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction (ASBR) group and 40 patients were included in the RFTR group. The evaluation items were knee stability, Lysholm knee score, IKDC subjective score at 2 years after surgery and bone tunnel enlargement. RESULTS: The RFTR group had a larger femoral tunnel area (average area, 53.1 ± 4.0 mm2 vs. 46.1 ± 7.0 mm2; P < 0.01), better anteroposterior stability, and higher Lysholm scores than the ASBR group (average side-to-side difference for anterior tibial translation, 0.6 ± 0.8 mm vs. 1.6 ± 1.4 mm; P < 0.01; average Lysholm score, 98.5 ± 2.1 vs. 97.5 ± 3.5; P < 0.01). Further, bone tunnel enlargement ratio was significantly lower in the RFTR group (73 ± 38% vs. 107 ± 41%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We designed and developed an original rounded rectangular dilator to perform a novel ACL surgery. This technique can create a larger bone tunnel and improve clinical results than the conventional round anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Anatomic single vs. double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a randomized clinical trial-Part 1: clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE: Compare clinical outcomes of anatomic single-bundle (SB) to anatomic double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). It was hypothesized that anatomic DB ACLR would result in better International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) scores and reduced anterior and rotatory laxity compared to SB ACLR. METHODS: Active individuals between 14 and 50 years of age that presented within 12 months of injury were eligible to participate. Individuals with prior injury or surgery of either knee, greater than a grade 1 concomitant knee ligament injury, or ACL insertion sites less than 14 mm or greater than 18 mm were excluded. Subjects were randomized to undergo SB or DB ACLR with a 10 mm-wide quadriceps tendon autograft harvested with a patellar bone block and were followed for 24 months. The primary outcome measures included the IKDC-SKF and KT-1000 (side to side difference) and pivot shift tests. Other secondary outcomes included measures of sports activity and participation, range of motion (ROM) and re-injury. RESULTS: Enrollment in the study was suspended due to patellar fractures related to harvest of the patellar bone plug. At that time, 57 subjects had been randomized (29 DB) and two-year follow-up was attained from 51 (89.5%). At 24-month follow-up there were no between-group differences detected for the primary outcomes. Twenty-one (77.8%) DB's and 20 (83.3%) SB's reported returning to pre-injury sports 2 years after surgery (n.s) Three subjects (2 DB's, 5.3% of total) sustained a graft rupture and 5 individuals (4 SB's, 8.8% of total) had a subsequent meniscus injury. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the early termination of the study, there were no detectable differences in clinical outcome between anatomic SB and DB ACLR when performed with a quadriceps tendon autograft with a bone block in individuals with ACL insertion sites that range from 14 to 18 mm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

Anatomic single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction both restore dynamic knee function: a randomized clinical trial-part II: knee kinematics.

PURPOSE: Compare side-to-side differences for knee kinematics between anatomic single-bundle (SB) and anatomic double-bundle (DB) ACLR during downhill running at 6 and 24 months post ACLR using high-accuracy dynamic stereo X-ray imaging. It was hypothesized that anatomic DB ACLR would better restore tibio-femoral kinematics compared to SB ACLR, based on comparison to the contralateral, uninjured knee. METHODS: Active individuals between 14 and 50 years of age that presented within 12 months of injury were eligible to participate. Individuals with prior injury or surgery of either knee, greater than a grade 1 concomitant knee ligament injury, or ACL insertion sites less than 14 mm or greater than 18 mm were excluded. Subjects were randomized to undergo SB or DB ACLR with a 10 mm-wide quadriceps tendon autograft harvested with a patellar bone block and were followed for 24 months. Dynamic knee function was assessed during treadmill downhill running using a dynamic stereo X-ray tracking system at 6 and 24 months after surgery. Three-dimensional tibio-femoral kinematics were calculated and compared between limbs (ACLR and uninjured contralateral) at each time point. RESULTS: Fifty-seven subjects were randomized (29 DB) and 2-year follow-up was attained from 51 (89.5%). No significant differences were found between SB and DB anatomic ACLR for any of the primary kinematic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the study hypothesis, double-bundle reconstruction did not show superior kinematic outcomes compared to the single-bundle ACLR. While neither procedure fully restored normal knee kinematics, both anatomic reconstructions were similarly effective for restoring near-normal dynamic knee function. The findings of this study indicate both SB and DB techniques can be used for patients with average size ACL insertion sites. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Evolving evidence in the treatment of primary and recurrent posterior cruciate ligament injuries, part 2: surgical techniques, outcomes and rehabilitation.

Isolated and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries are associated with severe limitations in daily, professional, and sports activities as well as with devastating long-term effects for the knee joint. As the number of primary and recurrent PCL injuries increases, so does the body of literature, with high-quality evidence evolving in recent years. However, the debate about the ideal treatment approach such as; operative vs. non-operative; single-bundle vs. double-bundle reconstruction; transtibial vs. tibial inlay technique, continues. Ultimately, the goal in the treatment of PCL injuries is restoring native knee kinematics and preventing residual posterior and combined rotatory knee laxity through an individualized approach. Certain demographic, anatomical, and surgical risk factors for failures in operative treatment have been identified. Failures after PCL reconstruction are increasing, confronting the treating surgeon with challenges including the need for revision PCL reconstruction. Part 2 of the evidence-based update on the management of primary and recurrent PCL injuries will summarize the outcomes of operative and non-operative treatment including indications, surgical techniques, complications, and risk factors for recurrent PCL deficiency. This paper aims to support surgeons in decision-making for the treatment of PCL injuries by systematically evaluating underlying risk factors, thus preventing postoperative complications and recurrent knee laxity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.