Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: randomized clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study with 2-year follow-up.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 21610263.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/0363546511405024.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
One aspect of the debate over the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament is whether it should be carried out with the single-bundle or double-bundle technique. The double-bundle technique results in fewer graft failures than the single-bundle technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. A total of 153 patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autografts using aperture interference screw fixation: single-bundle technique (SB group, n = 78) and double-bundle technique (DB group, n = 75). The evaluation methods were clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometric measurement, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Lysholm knee scores, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. All of the operations were performed by 1 experienced orthopaedic surgeon, and all clinical assessments were made by 2 blinded and independent examiners. A musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to the clinical data made the MRI interpretation. There were no differences between the study groups preoperatively. Ninety percent of patients (n = 138) were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up (range, 24-37 months). Eight patients (7 in the SB group and 1 in the DB group) had graft failure during the follow-up and had anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery (P = .04). In addition, 7 patients (5 in the SB group and 2 in the DB group) had an invisible graft on the MRI assessment at the 2-year follow-up. Also, the anteromedial bundle was partially invisible in 2 patients and the posterolateral bundle in 9 patients. Together, the total number of failures and invisible grafts were significantly higher in the SB group (12 patients, 15%) than the DB group (3 patients, 4%) (P = .024). No significant group differences were found in the knee scores or stability evaluations at the follow-up. This 2-year randomized trial showed that the revision rate of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was significantly lower with the double-bundle technique than that with the single-bundle technique. However, additional years of follow-up are needed to reveal the long-term results.
Medical subject headings
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction