PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in the clinical results between a remnant-preserving augmentation and a double-bundle reconstruction. METHODS: Between March 2008 and February 2009, we prospectively analyzed 100 cases of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. There were 55 cases of remnant-preserving augmentation and 45 cases of double-bundle reconstruction. We clinically compared the preoperative and postoperative range of motion, visual analog scale score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee knee evaluation form score, anterior drawer test, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) test, and anterior translation on Telos stress radiographs (Telos, Weiterstadt, Germany). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the postoperative range of motion, visual analog scale score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and International Knee Documentation Committee knee evaluation form score between the 2 groups (P > .05). The anterior drawer test was significantly better in the remnant-preserving augmentation group than the double-bundle reconstruction group (P = .038). However, there were no significant differences in the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, anterior translation on Telos stress radiographs, and KT-1000 arthrometer test between the 2 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of a remnant-preserving augmentation and a double-bundle reconstruction showed similar results in terms of anterior and rotary stability and clinical scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in the clinical results between a remnant-preserving augmentation and a double-bundle reconstruction. METHODS: Between March 2008 and February 2009, we prospectively analyzed 100 cases of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. There were 55 cases of remnant-preserving augmentation and 45 cases of double-bundle reconstruction. We clinically compared the preoperative and postoperative range of motion, visual analog scale score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee knee evaluation form score, anterior drawer test, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) test, and anterior translation on Telos stress radiographs (Telos, Weiterstadt, Germany). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the postoperative range of motion, visual analog scale score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and International Knee Documentation Committee knee evaluation form score between the 2 groups (P > .05). The anterior drawer test was significantly better in the remnant-preserving augmentation group than the double-bundle reconstruction group (P = .038). However, there were no significant differences in the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, anterior translation on Telos stress radiographs, and KT-1000 arthrometer test between the 2 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of a remnant-preserving augmentation and a double-bundle reconstruction showed similar results in terms of anterior and rotary stability and clinical scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.