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.

Are we all guilty of under-estimating intra-operative blood loss during hip fracture surgery?

AIM: To assess how accurately orthopaedic surgeons and anaesthesiologists estimate intraoperative blood loss during hip fracture surgery as part of the Surgical Safety Checklist (SCC). METHODS: A prospective study of 55 operations over 9 months. Pre- and post-operative estimations of blood loss were documented. Actual blood loss was determined by subtracting total amount of lavage fluid used from overall volumes in the suction bag and by weighing used swabs. RESULTS: Both, surgeons and anaesthesiologists, significantly underestimated intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Rather than numerical estimates, a more useful question within the SSC may therefore be: "Is excessive blood loss expected?"