PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been under intensive discussion and debate, although the anatomy of this ligament was resolved thoroughly almost 200 years ago. The ACL consist of two bundles, anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL). The conventional single-bundle method reconstructs the AM bundle only, while the modern double-bundle technique recreates both bundles for their anatomical sites. METHODS: An English language literature search was undertaken over the years 2000-2012 for ACL reconstruction, double-bundle versus single bundle technique. The search found 14 RCTs and two meta-analyses published to date. RESULTS: Two of the 14 studies (14 %) showed no difference between the two reconstruction methods while the remaining majority (12 trials, 86 %) concluded that the DB technique was better than the SB method. After the DB reconstruction, rotational stability of the knee was better in seven studies (50 %) and anteroposterior stability in six (43 %). No study spoke for the single-bundle technique. In addition, with the double-bundle technique knee scores were reported to be better in five (36 %) studies, and three trials (21 %) revealed less reoperations in the double-bundle group. CONCLUSIONS: The double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique was reported to have better or at least the same results as the conventional single-bundle method-even at a five-year follow-up. However, the majority of these studies had a rather short follow-up, and thus, longer studies are needed to confirm the true long-term results of ACL surgery. Long follow-up periods are also needed to find out whether double-bundle ACL reconstruction can eventually prevent knee osteoarthritis.
PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been under intensive discussion and debate, although the anatomy of this ligament was resolved thoroughly almost 200 years ago. The ACL consist of two bundles, anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL). The conventional single-bundle method reconstructs the AM bundle only, while the modern double-bundle technique recreates both bundles for their anatomical sites. METHODS: An English language literature search was undertaken over the years 2000-2012 for ACL reconstruction, double-bundle versus single bundle technique. The search found 14 RCTs and two meta-analyses published to date. RESULTS: Two of the 14 studies (14 %) showed no difference between the two reconstruction methods while the remaining majority (12 trials, 86 %) concluded that the DB technique was better than the SB method. After the DB reconstruction, rotational stability of the knee was better in seven studies (50 %) and anteroposterior stability in six (43 %). No study spoke for the single-bundle technique. In addition, with the double-bundle technique knee scores were reported to be better in five (36 %) studies, and three trials (21 %) revealed less reoperations in the double-bundle group. CONCLUSIONS: The double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique was reported to have better or at least the same results as the conventional single-bundle method-even at a five-year follow-up. However, the majority of these studies had a rather short follow-up, and thus, longer studies are needed to confirm the true long-term results of ACL surgery. Long follow-up periods are also needed to find out whether double-bundle ACL reconstruction can eventually prevent knee osteoarthritis.
Authors: Joan W H Luites; Ate B Wymenga; Leendert Blankevoort; Jan G M Kooloos Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2007-09-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: T Bonanzinga; C Signorelli; A Grassi; N Lopomo; M Jain; M Mosca; F Iacono; M Marcacci; S Zaffagnini Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Stephan Lorenz; Philipp Ahrens; Sonja Kirchhoff; Petra Wolf; Stefan Hinterwimmer; Andreas Obermeier; Marc Beirer; Chlodwig Kirchhoff Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Piia Suomalainen; Tommi Kiekara; Anna-Stina Moisala; Antti Paakkala; Pekka Kannus; Timo Järvelä Journal: Open Access J Sports Med Date: 2014-08-28