PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to objectively evaluate whether double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can better restore the normal translational and rotational laxities than the conventional single-bundle ACL reconstruction among the reported biomechanical studies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify in vitro and in vivo (intraoperative) biomechanical studies that compared the laxities (anterior or anteroposterior or rotational) between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstructions. Because of large variability among the loading conditions and testing methods used to determine the rotational laxities among the studies, a meta-analysis of rotational laxities was not feasible. RESULTS: Seven in vitro and three in vivo studies were included in this analysis based on the predefined inclusion criteria. The overall mean differences calculated by the random effects model in anteroposterior laxity between the single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction techniques at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion were 0.99 mm, 0.38 mm, 0.34 mm, and 0.07 mm, respectively. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 2 treatments at all flexion angles. Among the 9 studies that compared the rotational laxity of single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstructions, 4 reported that double-bundle reconstruction can provide better rotational control than single-bundle reconstruction. The other 5 studies could not identify any significant difference between the 2 reconstructions in terms of rotational laxity. CONCLUSIONS: Both single- and double-bundle treatment options for ACL injury result in similar anteroposterior knee joint laxity at time 0. No conclusive evidence on the superiority of 1 reconstruction technique over the other in terms of rotation laxity can be obtained because of several variations in the experimental protocol and the kinematics used to measure the rotational laxity among the studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, meta-analysis.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to objectively evaluate whether double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can better restore the normal translational and rotational laxities than the conventional single-bundle ACL reconstruction among the reported biomechanical studies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify in vitro and in vivo (intraoperative) biomechanical studies that compared the laxities (anterior or anteroposterior or rotational) between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstructions. Because of large variability among the loading conditions and testing methods used to determine the rotational laxities among the studies, a meta-analysis of rotational laxities was not feasible. RESULTS: Seven in vitro and three in vivo studies were included in this analysis based on the predefined inclusion criteria. The overall mean differences calculated by the random effects model in anteroposterior laxity between the single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction techniques at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion were 0.99 mm, 0.38 mm, 0.34 mm, and 0.07 mm, respectively. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 2 treatments at all flexion angles. Among the 9 studies that compared the rotational laxity of single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstructions, 4 reported that double-bundle reconstruction can provide better rotational control than single-bundle reconstruction. The other 5 studies could not identify any significant difference between the 2 reconstructions in terms of rotational laxity. CONCLUSIONS: Both single- and double-bundle treatment options for ACL injury result in similar anteroposterior knee joint laxity at time 0. No conclusive evidence on the superiority of 1 reconstruction technique over the other in terms of rotation laxity can be obtained because of several variations in the experimental protocol and the kinematics used to measure the rotational laxity among the studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, meta-analysis.
Authors: Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman; Karen K Briggs; William I Sterett; Richard J Hawkins Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Apr-May Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Yuji Yamamoto; Wei-Hsiu Hsu; Savio L-Y Woo; Andrew H Van Scyoc; Yoshiyuki Takakura; Richard E Debski Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Luke Pugh; Randy Mascarenhas; Shalinder Arneja; Patrick Y K Chin; Jordan M Leith Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Michael J Anderson; William M Browning; Christopher E Urband; Melissa A Kluczynski; Leslie J Bisson Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2016-03-15