Literature DB >> 22370060

Single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis--does anatomy matter?

Carola F van Eck1, Sebastian Kopf, James J Irrgang, Leendert Blankevoort, Mohit Bhandari, Freddie H Fu, Rudolf W Poolman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction leads to better restoration of anterior and rotational laxity and range of motion than single-bundle reconstruction.
METHODS: A search was performed in the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. All randomized, quasi-randomized, and observational clinical trials that reported the outcome of double- versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were included in our meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were anterior laxity (KT arthrometer; MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), pivot shift, and range of motion. Subgroup analyses were performed for more than 2 years' follow-up, anatomic reconstruction, and nonanatomic reconstruction. The quality of the included studies was scored by use of the GRADE Checklist.
RESULTS: Included 12 studies in this meta-analysis, 5 of which were randomized. There was a statistically significant difference in favor of double-bundle reconstruction for anterior laxity (KT arthrometer difference, -0.6 mm), Lachman test (64% risk reduction of positive Lachman), and pivot-shift test (69% risk reduction of positive shift). Similar results were found for the subgroup with more than 2 years' follow-up and anatomic reconstructions. There were no significant differences for the subgroup with nonanatomic reconstructions, except a 2.6 times risk increase of extension deficit with nonanatomic double-bundle reconstruction compared with nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction. Most of the included studies were found to have at least one serious limitation in study design.
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with single-bundle reconstruction, double-bundle reconstruction showed less anterior laxity, as measured by the KT arthrometer and Lachman test, and better rotational laxity, as measured by the pivot-shift test. The majority of the included studies had at least one major limitation in study design that decreased the quality of the study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis. Copyright Â
© 2012 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22370060     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.11.021

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


  32 in total

1.  The effect of intraoperative fluoroscopy on the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement in single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Eivind Inderhaug; Allan Larsen; Per Arne Waaler; Torbjørn Strand; Thomas Harlem; Eirik Solheim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Failure of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Gonzalo Samitier; Alejandro I Marcano; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Ramon Cugat; Kevin W Farmer; Michael W Moser
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2015-10

Review 3.  Cochrane in CORR (®): Double-bundle Versus Single-bundle Reconstruction for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture in Adults (Review).

Authors:  Raman Mundi; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Prospective randomized comparison of knee stability and joint degeneration for double- and single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Ran Sun; Bai-cheng Chen; Fei Wang; Xiao-feng Wang; Jing-qing Chen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Comparison of outcome after anatomic double-bundle and antero-medial portal non-anatomic single-bundle reconstruction in ACL-injured patients.

Authors:  Ioannis Karikis; Mattias Ahldén; Abraham Casut; Ninni Sernert; Jüri Kartus
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  A new technique in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with implant-free tibial fixation.

Authors:  Sylvio Noronha Sacramento; Eduardo Magalhães; Pascal Christel; Sheila Ingham; Thiago Yukio Fukuda
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Surgical treatment of partial anterior cruciate ligament lesions: medium-term results.

Authors:  Massimo Berruto; Luca Gala; Paolo Ferrua; Francesco Uboldi; Fabrizio Ferrara; Stefano Pasqualotto; Bruno M Marelli
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2015-02-13

8.  Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Zhenxiang Zhang; Beibei Gu; Wei Zhu; Lixian Zhu
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-04-18

Review 9.  Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a changing paradigm.

Authors:  Freddie H Fu; Carola F van Eck; Scott Tashman; James J Irrgang; Morey S Moreland
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Rotational laxity after anatomical ACL reconstruction measured by 3-D motion analysis: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques.

Authors:  Marie Bagger Bohn; Henrik Sørensen; Mette Krintel Petersen; Kjeld Søballe; Martin Lind
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.