Biomechanical Comparisons of Knee Stability After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Between 2 Clinically Available Transtibial Procedures

Kondo, Eiji; Merican, Azhar M.; Yasuda, Kazunori; Amis, Andrew A.

doi:10.1177/0363546510361234

Cited by 95 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, recent studies suggesting the need for better rotational control have stimulated interest in a more anatomic reconstruction with double-bundle [6,9,21,26,38,41,49,51]. Several studies suggest the anatomic double-bundle ACLR should improve pivot shift resistance and increase rotational knee control [8,38,46,47,49,51] and should help preserve menisci and limit progression toward arthritis [8,38,46,47,49,51].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single- versus Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction: Is There Any Difference in Stability and Function at 3-year Followup?

Gobbi¹,

Mahajan²,

Karnatzikos³

et al. 2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite a number of studies comparing postoperative stability and function after anatomic doublebundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), it remains unclear whether double-bundle reconstruction improves stability or function. Questions/purposes We therefore asked whether patients having single-and double-bundle ACLR using semitendinosus (ST) alone differed with regard to (1) postoperative stability; (2) ROM; and (3) five functional scores. Methods We prospectively followed 60 patients with an isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Thirty patients underwent single-bundle and 30 patients underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Clinically we assessed stability and range of motion (ROM); anteroposterior stability was assessed by Rolimeter and rotational stability by a pivot shift test. Function was assessed by IKDC, Noyes, Lysholm, Marx, and Tegner activity scales.The minimum followup was 36 months (mean, 46.2 months; range, 36-60 months). Results Residual anteroposterior laxity at 3 years postoperatively was similar in both groups: 1.4 ± 0.3 mm versus 1.4 ± 0.2 mm, respectively. We observed no difference in the pivot shift test. ROM was similar in both groups, although double-bundle patients required more physical therapy sessions to gain full ROM. IKDC, Noyes, Lysholm, Marx, and Tegner scores were similar at final followup. Conclusion Double-bundle reconstruction of the ACL did not improve function or stability compared with singlebundle reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single- versus Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction: Is There Any Difference in Stability and Function at 3-year Followup?

Gobbi¹,

Mahajan²,

Karnatzikos³

et al. 2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kanamori et al (2000) showed that anterior translation in the ACLdeficient knee resulting from a 10N·m internal rotation torque increased when that torque was combined with a 10N·m valgus torque; also ACL forces were greater with the combined torque. The most consistent finding in the ACL-deficient knee is an increase in anterior translation, where internal rotation was either not measured (Herbort et al, 2010;Yagi et al, 2002;Zantop et al, 2007), was found to be unchanged (Diermann et al, 2009;Seon et al, 2010) or increased (Kondo et al, 2010;Yamamoto et al, 2004). Studies have also sought to uncover the role of the ACL bands on combined internal rotation/valgus torque.…”

Section: Combined Internal Rotation/valgus Rotation -The 'Pivot Shift'mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Single and double bundle reconstructions were both unable to reduce anterior translation on combined internal rotation/valgus torque (5N·m/10N·m), but the double bundle method reduced it more. Kondo et al (2010) performed a similar study. Both reconstructions showed significant decreases from deficient values in anterior translation on 90N anterior force, with the double bundle method showing significantly less translation, and values were not compared with the intact state.…”

Section: Effect Of Femoral Tunnel Sitementioning

confidence: 97%

The Biomechanics of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Its Reconstruction

Jones¹,

Grimshaw²

2011

Theoretical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Currently, double-bundle ACL reconstruction has been stated to provide a better rotational control and functional recovery than the single-bundle method (2)(3)(4). However, in many studies in which long-term follow-ups have been reported, no difference between the two methods has been observed in terms of anteroposterior stability, rotational stability, or functional results (5)(6)(7)(8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results of an Anatomical Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction by the Anteromedial Method

Çetinkaya¹,

Mutlu²,

Yavuz³

et al. 2016

JAREM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the results of patients undergoing single-bundle anatomical reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) with the anteromedial portal technique and the effects of surgical timing on the results.Methods: A total of 47 patients (44 males, three females; mean age: 27 years) were included in this study. Lachman test, pivot shift test and KT-2000 arthrometry, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm activity scoring were used in the preoperative and final follow-up in order to clinically evaluate. Furthermore, 17 patients undergoing early surgery (within the first 6 months) and 30 patients undergoing late surgery were compared for the presence of additional pathologies and functional results. Results:The mean follow-up period was 25 months (range: 13-36 months). Lachman test, Pivot-shift test, KT-2000, Lysholm, and IKDC scores significantly improved during the final follow-up according to the preoperative values. Eighty-two percent (14/17) of patients in the early surgery group (ten medial, three lateral, and one bilateral) and 96% (29/30) of patients in the late surgery group (seventeen medial, five lateral, and seven bilateral) had meniscus tear, and the difference was statistically significant. Four patients requiring microfracture were present in the late surgery group. Functional outcome was better in patients in the early surgery group, although the difference was statistically not significant. Conclusion:Anatomical reconstruction of ACL with the anteromedial portal technique is an effective method to improve clinical and functional results. Additionally, early surgery will improve functional results because it will decrease the frequency of additional pathology. (JAREM 2016; 6: 88-93)

show abstract

Biomechanical Comparisons of Knee Stability After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Between 2 Clinically Available Transtibial Procedures

Abstract: Background: Several trials have compared the clinical results between anatomic double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures. However, it remains controversial whether the anatomic double-bundle procedure is superior to the single-bundle procedure.

Cited by 95 publications

References 42 publications

Single- versus Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction: Is There Any Difference in Stability and Function at 3-year Followup?

Single- versus Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction: Is There Any Difference in Stability and Function at 3-year Followup?

The Biomechanics of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Its Reconstruction

Results of an Anatomical Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction by the Anteromedial Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About