Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Suomalainen, Piia; Järvelä, Timo; Paakkala, Antti; Kannus, Pekka; Järvinen, Markku

doi:10.1177/0363546512448177

Cited by 132 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As per previous studies, ACL reconstructions led to better clinical [2,10,16,24,28,38,40] and knee stability outcomes [1,5,7,19,20], but preoperative information on ACL anatomy is an essential prerequisite in determining optimal graft choice and restoring native ACL anatomy.…”

Section: Fig 3 Percentage Of the Length Of Tibial Acl Insertion Sitementioning

confidence: 74%

Tibial ACL insertion site length: correlation between preoperative MRI and intra-operative measurements

Widhalm

Sürer

Kurapati

et al. 2014

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Fig 3 Percentage Of the Length Of Tibial Acl Insertion Sitementioning

confidence: 74%

Tibial ACL insertion site length: correlation between preoperative MRI and intra-operative measurements

Widhalm

Sürer

Kurapati

et al. 2014

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although revision ACL reconstruction is promising, the outcome is generally inferior to that of successful primary ACL reconstruction (9,26). Despite double-bundle ACL reconstruction producing superior clinical outcomes to those of single-bundle ACL reconstruction (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), the double-bundle technique has rarely been used in revision ACL reconstruction due to it being technically more challenging (27). Tunnel placement errors, particularly femoral tunnel misplacement, are the most common causes for primary graft failure (28).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the double-bundle technique produced better Lachman and pivot-shift test results, KT arthrometry results and Tegner score after 3-12 years post operation (19). In most cases, double-bundle ACL reconstruction yielded significantly favorable results on KT arthrometry, pivot shift test and Lachman test (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), as well as reduced graft failure (22)(23)(24) and improved International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score (18,23,24) compared with single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Therefore, double-bundle ACL reconstruction is indicated to be superior to single-bundle ACL reconstruction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Consequently, inferior outcomes to primary ACL reconstructions were reported, although significant improvements have been demonstrated after revision reconstruction (10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Of note, most revision ACL constructions were performed using a single-bundle technique (15); however, a vast amount of evidence has demonstrated that the double-bundle technique is superior to the single-bundle technique for primary ACL reconstruction (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). Compared with single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the double-bundle technique produced better Lachman and pivot-shift test results, KT arthrometry results and Tegner score after 3-12 years post operation (19).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective in rescuing failed primary reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise

Jiang

Chen

et al. 2017

Exp Ther Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of a pair of cruciate ligaments in the human knee and is critical for knee stability, as it limits anterior tibial translation on the femur, restrains rotation and resists varus and valgus joint forces. The present study aimed to assess the effect of double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in improving the subjective and objective functions and re-introducing patients to physical activity after primary ACL reconstruction had failed. A total of 34 patients who underwent double-bundle ACL revision surgeries were included in the present retrospective study. Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scores as well as KT-2000 arthrometry measures were obtained pre-and post-operatively. The follow-up time was at least 2 years. The results indicated that the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores as well as KT-2000 flexion scores were significantly improved after revision ACL reconstruction. All patients resumed to performing physical exercise activities after revision surgeries, 65% of whom reached pre-injury levels. In conclusion, these results demonstrated that double-bundle revision ACL reconstruction was consistently effective in rescuing failed primary ACL reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise.

show abstract

“…The longest follow-up (five years) study published to date on single bundle versus anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is by Suomalainen et al [47]. There were three groups in this study with 30 patients in each: single-bundle with bioabsorbable screws, singlebundle with metallic screws and double-bundle with bioabsorbable screws.…”

Section: Randomised Controlled Studiesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Double-bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament reconstruction: a review of literature

Suomalainen

Kannus

Järvelä³

2012

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 fiveyear 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.

show abstract

Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Cited by 132 publications

References 57 publications

Tibial ACL insertion site length: correlation between preoperative MRI and intra-operative measurements

Tibial ACL insertion site length: correlation between preoperative MRI and intra-operative measurements

Double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective in rescuing failed primary reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise

Double-bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament reconstruction: a review of literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About