Literature DB >> 27343215

Comparison Between Single- and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With 6- to 8-Stranded Hamstring Autograft: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Yulei Liu1, Guoqing Cui1, Hui Yan1, Yuping Yang1, Yingfang Ao2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with 6- to 8-stranded hamstring autograft (HG) is better than single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction remains debatable, as long-term follow-up data are lacking.
PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate and compare the long-term results of DB and SB ACL reconstruction with a 6- to 8-stranded HG. STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial; LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
METHODS: A total of 80 patients with chronic ACL rupture were randomized to SB or DB ACL reconstruction with a 6- to 8-stranded HG. In the SB group, both the semitendinosus tendon (ST) and the gracilis tendon (GT) were prepared in 3 or 4 strands, with a total of 6 to 8 strands. In the DB group, the ST was prepared in 3 or 4 strands used for the anteromedial bundle, and the GT was prepared in the same manner for the posterolateral bundle. Each graft was fixed with an EndoButton, a bioabsorbable interference screw, and a staple. Outcome assessment was performed by a blinded independent observer using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner, and Lysholm scores, as well as range of motion (ROM), Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference, and return-to-sport data.
RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (DB group, 34; SB group, 34) were observed for a mean of 80 months (range, 74-86 months). There were 2 traumatic instability failures and two 5° extension restrictions in the DB group, while no failures or 5° extension restrictions were observed in the SB group. The mean Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores improved significantly in both groups compared with preoperation scores (P < .05). No patient had a positive Lachman test result. No significant differences were found between groups in functional scores, incidence of pivot shift, ROM, Lachman test, KT-2000 arthrometer anterior laxity, or time and level of return to sport.
CONCLUSION: Both SB and DB ACL reconstruction with 6- to 8-stranded HG showed satisfactory results in subjective scores and anteroposterior and rotational stability over a nearly 7-year follow-up; neither technique was superior.
© 2016 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  anterior cruciate ligament; double-bundle reconstruction; hamstring tendon; single-bundle reconstruction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27343215     DOI: 10.1177/0363546516650876

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  11 in total

1.  [Comparable results after arthroscopic replacement of the anterior cruciate ligament : Clinical and functional results after single bundle and double bundle reconstruction].

Authors:  M Janko; R D Verboket; E Plawetzki; E V Geiger; T Lustenberger; I Marzi; C Nau
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Patient satisfaction with health is substantially improved following ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Philipp Minzlaff; Thomas Heidt; Matthias J Feucht; Johannes E Plath; Stefan Hinterwimmer; Andreas B Imhoff; Tim Saier
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Single Bundle Versus Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mohammed S Alomari; Abdullah A Ghaddaf; Ahmed S Abdulhamid; Mohammed S Alshehri; Mujeeb Ashraf; Hatem H Alharbi
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 1.033

4.  Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is better than single-bundle reconstruction in terms of objective assessment but not in terms of subjective score.

Authors:  Faisal Ahmed Hashem El-Sherief; Wael Abdelkarim Aldahshan; Yaser Elsayed Wahd; Ashraf Mohamed Abdelaziz; Hany Abdel Gawwad Soliman; Tohamy Goda Hassan; Hassan Fathy Elbehairy; Adel Hamed Awadallah
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Return to Sport After ACL Reconstruction With a BTB Versus Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matthew W DeFazio; Emily J Curry; Michael J Gustin; David C Sing; Hussein Abdul-Rassoul; Richard Ma; Freddie Fu; Xinning Li
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-12-15

6.  Using the Remnant Anterior Cruciate Ligament to Improve Knee Stability: Biomechanical Analysis Using a Cadaveric Model.

Authors:  Derek T Nhan; Stephen M Belkoff; Prerna Singh; Brian T Sullivan; Walter Klyce; R Jay Lee
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-04-06

Review 7.  The Statistical Fragility of Single-Bundle vs Double-Bundle Autografts for ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.

Authors:  Cooper B Ehlers; Andrew J Curley; Nathan P Fackler; Arjun Minhas; Ariel N Rodriguez; Kory Pasko; Edward S Chang
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-12-20

Review 8.  Double bundle ACL reconstruction leads to better restoration of knee laxity and subjective outcomes than single bundle ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Arttu Seppänen; Piia Suomalainen; Heini Huhtala; Heikki Mäenpää; Tommi Kiekara; Timo Järvelä
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 4.114

9.  Hamstring Graft Preparation Techniques for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Gustavo Vinagre; Nicholas I Kennedy; Jorge Chahla; Mark E Cinque; Zaamin B Hussain; Morten L Olesen; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-11-06

10.  Subjective assessment reported by patients shows differences between single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Antonio Maestro; Irene Herruzo; David Varillas-Delgado; Carlos Martín-Saborido
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.