PURPOSE: Different tunnel configurations have been used for double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, controversy still exists as to whether three-tunnel DB with double-femoral tunnels and single-tibial tunnel (2F-1T) or with single-femoral tunnel and double-tibial tunnels (1F-2T) better restores intact knee biomechanics than single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction. The purpose was to compare the knee kinematics and in situ force in the grafts among SB and two types of three-tunnel DB ACL reconstructions performed in an anatomic fashion. METHODS: Twenty-four porcine knees were subjected to an 89-N anterior tibial load (simulated KT-1000 test) at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion and to a 4-Nm internal tibial torque and 7-Nm valgus torque (simulated pivot-shift test) at 30° and 60° of flexion. The resulting knee kinematics and in situ force in the ACL or replacement grafts were measured using a robotic system for (1) ACL-intact, (2) ACL-deficient, and (3) three ACL reconstructed knees: SB; DB 2F-1T; and DB 1F-2T. RESULTS: During the simulated pivot-shift test, the DB grafts more closely restored the in situ force in the intact ACL at low flexion angle than the SB graft. There were no significant differences in knee kinematics between SB and DB ACL reconstruction. The DB 2F-1T reconstruction did not show a significant difference in knee kinematics or in situ force when compared to the DB 1F-2T technique. CONCLUSION: The in situ force in the ACL is better restored with an anatomic three-tunnel DB reconstruction in response to the simulated pivot-shift test at low flexion angle when compared to an anatomic SB reconstruction. Both three-tunnel DB ACL reconstructions performed in an anatomic fashion had similar biomechanical behavior. As long as it is performed anatomically, DB ACL reconstruction could be better alternative than SB ACL reconstruction, no matter which three-tunnel procedure, 2F-1T or 1F-2T, is used.
PURPOSE: Different tunnel configurations have been used for double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, controversy still exists as to whether three-tunnel DB with double-femoral tunnels and single-tibial tunnel (2F-1T) or with single-femoral tunnel and double-tibial tunnels (1F-2T) better restores intact knee biomechanics than single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction. The purpose was to compare the knee kinematics and in situ force in the grafts among SB and two types of three-tunnel DB ACL reconstructions performed in an anatomic fashion. METHODS: Twenty-four porcine knees were subjected to an 89-N anterior tibial load (simulated KT-1000 test) at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion and to a 4-Nm internal tibial torque and 7-Nm valgus torque (simulated pivot-shift test) at 30° and 60° of flexion. The resulting knee kinematics and in situ force in the ACL or replacement grafts were measured using a robotic system for (1) ACL-intact, (2) ACL-deficient, and (3) three ACL reconstructed knees: SB; DB 2F-1T; and DB 1F-2T. RESULTS: During the simulated pivot-shift test, the DB grafts more closely restored the in situ force in the intact ACL at low flexion angle than the SB graft. There were no significant differences in knee kinematics between SB and DB ACL reconstruction. The DB 2F-1T reconstruction did not show a significant difference in knee kinematics or in situ force when compared to the DB 1F-2T technique. CONCLUSION: The in situ force in the ACL is better restored with an anatomic three-tunnel DB reconstruction in response to the simulated pivot-shift test at low flexion angle when compared to an anatomic SB reconstruction. Both three-tunnel DB ACL reconstructions performed in an anatomic fashion had similar biomechanical behavior. As long as it is performed anatomically, DB ACL reconstruction could be better alternative than SB ACL reconstruction, no matter which three-tunnel procedure, 2F-1T or 1F-2T, is used.
Authors: Lars Engebretsen; Coen A Wijdicks; Colin J Anderson; Benjamin Westerhaus; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-11-05 Impact factor: 4.342