Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2017; 30(09): 898-904
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598176
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Single-Bundle versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial with 6-Year Follow-up

Paolo Adravanti
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Casa di Cura Città di Parma, Parma, Italy
,
Francesco Dini   *
2   Section of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphological and Functional Images, School of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
,
Laura de Girolamo   *
3   Orthopaedic Biotechnology Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy
,
Massimo Cattani
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Casa di Cura Città di Parma, Parma, Italy
,
Michele Attilio Rosa
2   Section of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphological and Functional Images, School of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

09 June 2016

19 December 2016

Publication Date:
20 February 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is increasingly used in a large number of patients and it allows obtaining very good clinical and subjective results; however, functional tests show a persistent rotational instability. Biomechanical studies seem to indicate that double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction allows to obtain increased anterior and rotational stability compared with SB. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to compare the clinical outcome and the possible osteoarthritic evolution of patients treated either with a SB (freehand transtibial femoral tunnel) or with a DB technique (outside-in for posterolateral femoral tunnel/inside-out for anteromedial femoral tunnel) at a final follow-up of 6 years. A total of 60 patients with complete ACL rupture (age, 16–40 years) were prospectively randomized to SB (n = 30) or DB (n = 30) groups. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and after surgery at 6 months, 1, 3, and 6 years with Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, and KT-2000 (Medmetric Corp). The degree of osteoarthritis (OA) based on the Kellgren–Lawrence grade was also assessed. No significant differences in background factors between the two groups were observed. Homogeneity was also found in term of preoperative Lysholm score, IKDC, and KT-2000 between SB and DB groups. After 6 months from surgery, both groups showed significant improvements for Lysholm, IKDC, and KT-2000 score with respect to preoperative observations (p < 0.001); however, no significant differences have been observed in term of postoperative values between SB and DB groups at each time point (6-year evaluation: Lysholm score 98.14 ± 10.03 and 97.22 ± 12.82; IKDC normal + nearly normal 95 and 100%; KT-2000 1.68 ± 1.26 and 1.03 ± 1.92 for SB and DB, respectively; all p > 0.05). At the final follow-up, three patients (11.11%) in the DB group and two patients (7.69%) in the SB group presented signs of OA progression. Our study did not reveal any advantages in using DB ACL reconstruction in mid- to long-term follow-up in term of clinical outcome and knee stability, as well as in term of OA progression.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) - ligament tears - double bundle ACL reconstruction - single bundle ACL reconstruction - osteoarthritis

* Dr. Dini and Dr. de Girolmo contributed equally to the article.


 

  • References

  • 1 Aune AK, Holm I, Risberg MA, Jensen HK, Steen H. Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft compared with patellar tendon-bone autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A randomized study with two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (06) 722-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Fleming BC. , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament replacement: comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts with two-strand hamstring grafts. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (09) 1503-1513
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Freedman KB, D'Amato MJ, Nedeff DD, Kaz A, Bach Jr BR. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a metaanalysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31 (01) 2-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yunes M, Richmond JC, Engels EA, Pinczewski LA. Patellar versus hamstring tendons in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Arthroscopy 2001; 17 (03) 248-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H. Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (03) 240-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mott HW. Semitendinosus anatomic reconstruction for cruciate ligament insufficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983; (172) 90-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Müller W, Das Knie. Form, Funktion und ligamentäre Wiederherstellungschirurgie. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Girgis FG, Marshall JL, Monajem A. The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint. Anatomical, functional and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975; (106) 216-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sakane M, Fox RJ, Woo SL, Livesay GA, Li G, Fu FH. In situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament and its bundles in response to anterior tibial loads. J Orthop Res 1997; 15 (02) 285-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Colombet P, Robinson J, Christel P. , et al. Morphology of anterior cruciate ligament attachments for anatomic reconstruction: a cadaveric dissection and radiographic study. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (09) 984-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
  • 12 Woo SL, Kanamori A, Zeminski J, Yagi M, Papageorgiou C, Fu FH. The effectiveness of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstrings and patellar tendon. A cadaveric study comparing anterior tibial and rotational loads. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (06) 907-914
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zantop T, Herbort M, Raschke MJ, Fu FH, Petersen W. The role of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament in anterior tibial translation and internal rotation. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (02) 223-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Adachi N, Ochi M, Uchio Y, Iwasa J, Kuriwaka M, Ito Y. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Single- versus double-bundle multistranded hamstring tendons. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86 (04) 515-520
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Hamada M, Shino K, Horibe S. , et al. Single- versus bi-socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autogenous multiple-stranded hamstring tendons with endoButton femoral fixation: a prospective study. Arthroscopy 2001; 17 (08) 801-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Muneta T, Koga H, Mochizuki T. , et al. A prospective randomized study of 4-strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (06) 618-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Muneta T, Koga H, Morito T, Yagishita K, Sekiya I. A retrospective study of the midterm outcome of two-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled semitendinosus tendon in comparison with one-bundle reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (03) 252-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zhao J, Peng X, He Y, Wang J. Two-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with eight-stranded hamstring tendons: four-tunnel technique. Knee 2006; 13 (01) 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Suomalainen P, Järvelä T, Paakkala A, Kannus P, Järvinen M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study with 5-year results. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (07) 1511-1518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Outerbridge RE. The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961; 43-B: 752-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 1982; 10 (03) 150-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. , et al. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (05) 600-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Daniel KM, Stone ML, Riehl B, Moore MR. A measurement of lower limb function: the one leg hop for distance. Am J Knee Surg 1982; 1: 212-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE, McCloskey JW, Hartman W. Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (255) 204-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Noyes FR, Barber SD, Mangine RE. Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Sports Med 1991; 19 (05) 513-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16 (04) 494-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Harris JD, Abrams GD, Bach BR. , et al. Return to sport after ACL reconstruction. Orthopedics 2014; 37 (02) e103-e108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kondo E, Yasuda K, Azuma H, Tanabe Y, Yagi T. Prospective clinical comparisons of anatomic double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in 328 consecutive patients. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (09) 1675-1687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ventura A, Iori S, Legnani C, Terzaghi C, Borgo E, Albisetti W. Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: assessment with vertical jump test. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (07) 1201-1210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yagi M, Kuroda R, Nagamune K, Yoshiya S, Kurosaka M. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction can improve rotational stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 454 (454) 100-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Björnsson H, Andernord D, Desai N. , et al. No difference in revision rates between single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative study of 16,791 patients from the Swedish national knee ligament register. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (04) 659-664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 van Eck CF, Kopf S, Irrgang JJ. , et al. Single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis--does anatomy matter?. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (03) 405-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mayr HO, Benecke P, Hoell A. , et al. Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (01) 34-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Woo SH, Seo HY, Lee KB. Progression of osteoarthritis after double- and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (10) 2340-2346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar