In vivo knee rotational stability 2 years after double-bundle and anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction

Komzák, Martin; Hart, Radek; Feranec, Martin; Šmíd, P.; Kocová, R.

doi:10.1007/s00068-017-0769-7

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the Laxitester for the measurement of rotational laxity in the current population, the 5-year FU evaluation did not show any statistically significant differences in the side-to-side difference of rotation angles between the SB and DB group and no significant difference compared with the healthy contralateral knee. In comparison to the study by Komzák et al, 25 the femoral insertion was applied deeper in the SB group. This might explain the improved stability in internal rotation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Validation and clinical use has been described in several previous papers. 14,15,23,24 Komzák et al 25 controlled rotational laxity of the knee after ACL-R in the DB and SB technique using the navigation system OrthoPilot after 2 years. They found the DB reconstruction of the ACL restoring rotational stability of the knee joint without any significant difference in comparison to the contralateral healthy knee, whereas the internal rotational stability of the knee joint after the anatomic SB technique was not sufficient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction—5-Year Results

Mayr

Bruder

Hube³

et al. 2018

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction—5-Year Results

Mayr

Bruder

Hube³

et al. 2018

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Theoretically, the AMB may prevent an anterior tibial translation at higher flexion angles, while the PLB may additionally restrain anterior tibial loads as well as a combined rotatory load at lower flexion angles [ 9 ]. Several biomechanical studies [ 10 – 14 ] reported that the DB technique could rebuild both the AMB and the PLB and thus might reproduce knee stability and kinematics closer to the native knee than the SB technique in ACL reconstruction. However, other biomechanical studies of Kondo et al [ 15 ] as well as Lorbach et al [ 16 ] showed that the DB reconstruction might not offer significant further advantages than the SB reconstruction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up

Chen

Tie

et al. 2018

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBoth single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes.MethodsThis study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome.ResultsFive RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group.ConclusionThe DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up.

show abstract

“…In recent years, both single-bundle and double-bundle techniques have been commonly used in ACL reconstruction. Several studies have reported that the doublebundle technique of ACL reconstruction could restore knee stability and kinematics to levels closer to those of the native knee than the conventional round singlebundle technique [17][18][19]. However, there remain concerns regarding the double-bundle technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical study of anatomical ACL reconstruction using a rounded rectangular dilator

Nakase

Takata

Shimozaki

et al. 2021

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was that to compare clinical results between the rounded rectangular femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction (RFTR) and the conventional round femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon. The hypothesis was that ACL reconstruction performed using the rounded rectangular dilator technique was better than that performed using the conventional round femoral tunnel technique in terms of clinical results and bone tunnel enlargement. Methods We conducted retrospective study. After exclusions, 40 patients were included in the conventional anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction (ASBR) group and 40 patients were included in the RFTR group. The evaluation items were knee stability, Lysholm knee score, IKDC subjective score at 2 years after surgery and bone tunnel enlargement. Results The RFTR group had a larger femoral tunnel area (average area, 53.1 ± 4.0 mm2 vs. 46.1 ± 7.0 mm2; P < 0.01), better anteroposterior stability, and higher Lysholm scores than the ASBR group (average side-to-side difference for anterior tibial translation, 0.6 ± 0.8 mm vs. 1.6 ± 1.4 mm; P < 0.01; average Lysholm score, 98.5 ± 2.1 vs. 97.5 ± 3.5; P < 0.01). Further, bone tunnel enlargement ratio was significantly lower in the RFTR group (73 ± 38% vs. 107 ± 41%; P < 0.01). Conclusions We designed and developed an original rounded rectangular dilator to perform a novel ACL surgery. This technique can create a larger bone tunnel and improve clinical results than the conventional round anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

show abstract

In vivo knee rotational stability 2 years after double-bundle and anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction—5-Year Results

Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction—5-Year Results

Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up

Clinical study of anatomical ACL reconstruction using a rounded rectangular dilator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About