Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(03): 273-279
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713730
Original Article

A Comparison of Central Anatomic Single-Bundle Reconstruction and Anatomic Double-Bundle Reconstruction in Anteroposterior and Rotational Knee Stability: Intraoperative Biomechanical Evaluation

Yasunari Ikuta
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan
,
Atsuo Nakamae
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan
,
Ryo Shimizu
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan
,
Masakazu Ishikawa
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan
,
Tomoyuki Nakasa
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan
,
Mitsuo Ochi
2   President of Hiroshima University, Japan
,
Nobuo Adachi
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Postoperative anterior and rotational stability are still controversial when compared with single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This study aimed to compare the central anatomical SB and anatomical DB ACL reconstruction in intraoperative knee kinematics during continuous knee flexion-extension. A total of 34 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using the hamstring tendon were evaluated intraoperatively before and immediately after ACL reconstruction using OrthoPilot ACL Navigation System Version 3.0. The patients were prospectively randomized into the central anatomical SB (17 knees) and the anatomical DB reconstruction (17 knees) groups. The tibial translation and rotation were continuously measured during knee flexion-extension under conventional knee motion, anterior tibial load (100N), and internal-external torque (3 N·m). The anterior tibial translation and total range of tibial rotation were calculated from the measurement values from 20 to 50 degrees at each 5-degree point. The anterior tibial translation (p = 0.59; two-factor repeated measures analysis of variance; η 2G = 0.0077) and total range of tibial rotation (p = 0.95; η 2G = 0.0001) at each knee flexion angle showed no significant difference between the central anatomical SB and anatomical DB reconstruction groups. It is suggested that the central anatomical SB reconstruction is comparable with the anatomical DB reconstruction in biomechanical anteroposterior and rotational knee stability at time 0.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - central anatomical single-bundle reconstruction - anatomical double-bundle reconstruction - biomechanical evaluation - knee kinematics


Publication History

Received: 03 April 2019

Accepted: 24 May 2020

Article published online:
02 July 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Yoshiya S. Editorial commentary: single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (01) 43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Björnsson H, Desai N, Musahl V. et al. Is double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to single-bundle? A comprehensive systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (03) 696-739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gadikota HR, Seon JK, Chen CH, Wu JL, Gill TJ, Li G. In vitro and intraoperative laxities after single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (06) 849-860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lim HC, Yoon YC, Wang JH, Bae JH. Anatomical versus non-anatomical single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study of comparison of knee stability. Clin Orthop Surg 2012; 4 (04) 249-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ho JY, Gardiner A, Shah V, Steiner ME. Equal kinematics between central anatomic single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (05) 464-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic double-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and nonanatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (02) 279-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Goldsmith MT, Jansson KS, Smith SD, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF, Wijdicks CA. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: an in vitro study. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (07) 1595-1604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Herbort M, Domnick C, Raschke MJ. et al. Comparison of knee kinematics after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction via the medial portal technique with a central femoral tunnel and an eccentric femoral tunnel and after anatomic double-bundle reconstruction: a human cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (01) 126-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Seon JK, Gadikota HR, Wu J-L, Sutton K, Gill TJ, Li G. Comparison of single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions in restoration of knee kinematics and anterior cruciate ligament forces. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (07) 1359-1367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kanaya A, Ochi M, Deie M, Adachi N, Nishimori M, Nakamae A. Intraoperative evaluation of anteroposterior and rotational stabilities in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: lower femoral tunnel placed single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (08) 907-913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nakamae A, Ochi M, Deie M. et al. Biomechanical function of anterior cruciate ligament remnants: how long do they contribute to knee stability after injury in patients with complete tears?. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (12) 1577-1585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ohkawa S, Adachi N, Deie M, Nakamae A, Nakasa T, Ochi M. The relationship of anterior and rotatory laxity between surgical navigation and clinical outcome after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (04) 778-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kazusa H, Nakamae A, Ochi M. Augmentation technique for anterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin Sports Med 2013; 32 (01) 127-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Shino K, Horibe S, Hamada M. et al. Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Tech Knee Surg 2002; 1: 78-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bernard M, Hertel P, Hornung H, Cierpinski T. Femoral insertion of the ACL. Radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg 1997; 10 (01) 14-21 , discussion 21–22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Forsythe B, Kopf S, Wong AK. et al. The location of femoral and tibial tunnels in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction analyzed by three-dimensional computed tomography models. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (06) 1418-1426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria; 2016
    PubMed
  • 18 Tsukada H, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Toh S. Anatomical analysis of the anterior cruciate ligament femoral and tibial footprints. J Orthop Sci 2008; 13 (02) 122-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 de Abreu-e-Silva GM, de Oliveira MH, Maranhão GS. et al. Three-dimensional computed tomography evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament footprint for anatomic single-bundle reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (03) 770-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Parkinson B, Gogna R, Robb C, Thompson P, Spalding T. Anatomic ACL reconstruction: the normal central tibial footprint position and a standardised technique for measuring tibial tunnel location on 3D CT. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (05) 1568-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Tsukada H, Toh S. Intraoperative biomechanical evaluation of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a navigation system: comparison of hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (10) 1903-1912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lee S, Kim H, Jang J, Seong SC, Lee MC. Comparison of anterior and rotatory laxity using navigation between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction: prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (04) 752-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Beynnon B, Howe JG, Pope MH, Johnson RJ, Fleming BC. The measurement of anterior cruciate ligament strain in vivo. Int Orthop 1992; 16 (01) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gabriel MT, Wong EK, Woo SL, Yagi M, Debski RE. Distribution of in situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament in response to rotatory loads. J Orthop Res 2004; 22 (01) 85-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Markolf KL, Kochan A, Amstutz HC. Measurement of knee stiffness and laxity in patients with documented absence of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66 (02) 242-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar