Literature DB >> 20434660

Outcome of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a preliminary 2-year prospective study.

Se-Jin Park1, Young-Bok Jung, Hwa-Jae Jung, Ho-Joong Jung, Hun Kyu Shin, Eugene Kim, Kwang-Sup Song, Gwang-Sin Kim, Hye-Young Cheon, Seonwoo Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
METHODS: We designed a prospective study that included patients with an isolated ACL injury. From April 2004 to February 2007, of 147 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction, 113 were included in this study. We serially obtained clinical and radiologic data preoperatively and postoperatively. We compared preoperative data and data at 2 years postoperatively in patients who had undergone single-bundle ACL reconstruction versus patients who had undergone double-bundle ACL reconstruction. There were 50 single-bundle reconstructions and 63 double-bundle reconstructions. Anteroposterior stability was assessed objectively by anterior stress radiographs with the telos device (telos, Marburg, Germany) and the maximal manual test with the KT-2000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA). Rotational stability was determined by lateral pivot-shift test. The clinical results were assessed by International Knee Documentation Committee and Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie scores and Tegner activity scale. In addition, we evaluated postoperative thigh circumference and range of motion.
RESULTS: Residual anteroposterior laxity determined at 2 years postoperatively by telos and KT-2000 was 1.74mm +/- 1.67mm and 1.79mm +/- 1.56mm, respectively, in the single-bundle reconstruction group and 1.63mm +/- 1.50mm and 1.61mm +/- 1.22mm, respectively, in the double-bundle reconstruction group. There were no statistically significant differences. For the lateral pivot-shift test done at 2 years postoperatively, there was no statistically significant difference. In addition, clinical results such as International Knee Documentation Committee score, Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie score, Tegner activity scale, thigh circumference, and range of motion showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Double-bundle reconstruction of the ACL by a method using 2 femoral tunnel and 2 tibial tunnels showed no differences in stability results or any other clinical aspects or in terms of patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20434660     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.09.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  27 in total

1.  Recent evolution of cruciate ligament surgery of the knee.

Authors:  Young-Bok Jung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05-17

2.  Rotatory laxity evaluation of the knee using modified Slocum's test in open magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ken Okazaki; Yasutaka Tashiro; Toshiaki Izawa; Shuichi Matsuda; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-12-31       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Pivot shift as an outcome measure for ACL reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Olufemi R Ayeni; Manraj Chahal; Michael N Tran; Sheila Sprague
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Factors affecting anterior knee pain following anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Yasuo Niki; Akihiro Hakozaki; Wataru Iwamoto; Hiroya Kanagawa; Hideo Matsumoto; Yoshiaki Toyama; Yasunori Suda
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-11-05       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 5.  Can the pivot-shift be eliminated by anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?

Authors:  Stefano Zaffagnini; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Nicola Lopomo; Cecilia Signorelli; Tommaso Bonanzinga; Costanza Musiani; Papakonstantinou Vassilis; Marco Nitri; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Comparison of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and single-bundle reconstruction with remnant pull-out suture.

Authors:  Seong Hwan Kim; Young Bok Jung; Min Ku Song; Sang Hak Lee; Ho Joong Jung; Han Jun Lee; Hyoung Seok Jung; Hawa-Tahir Siti
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Static rotational and sagittal knee laxity measurements after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  O Lorbach; M Kieb; P Brogard; S Maas; D Pape; R Seil
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: is there any difference in stability and function at 3-year followup?

Authors:  Alberto Gobbi; Vivek Mahajan; Georgios Karnatzikos; Norimasa Nakamura
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Mechanical assessment of two different methods of tripling hamstring tendons when using suspensory fixation.

Authors:  Martyn Snow; William Cheung; Jamaluddin Mahmud; Sam Evans; Catherine Holt; Bin Wang; Mahmoud Chizari
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Tibial ACL insertion site length: correlation between preoperative MRI and intra-operative measurements.

Authors:  Harald K Widhalm; Levent Surer; Nikhil Kurapati; Claudia Guglielmino; James J Irrgang; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.