Single– versus two–femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique

Mae, Tatsuo; Shino, Konsei; Miyama, Takahide; Shinjo, Hirotaka; Ochi, Takahiro; Yoshikawa, Hideki; Fujie, Hiromichi

doi:10.1053/jars.2001.25250

Cited by 224 publications

(176 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

169

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Anatomic studies have demonstrated the anterior cruciate ligament consists of two functional bundles: the anteromedial (AM) and the posterolateral (PL) bundle whose nomenclature is related to their insertion in the tibial plateau [2,11,36]. In cadaveric studies, the AM bundle tightens during knee flexion, whereas the PL bundle slackens; in contrast, the PL bundle tightens during knee extension, whereas the AM bundle slackens [2,27,36].…”

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

“…The "multiple-bundle" configuration of the ACL, subdivided into AM and PL bundles and each having different functions in knee kinematics, was first described more than 20 years ago by Ferretti et al [14]. In biomechanical cadaver studies, Mae et al [15] and Yagi et al [16] showed that anatomical ACL double-bundle reconstruction provides better anteroposterior and rotational knee stability; furthermore, two bundles can replicate the native ACL ligament more closely than a single bundle in terms of knee stability. Subsequently, anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction became one of the most popular and widely discussed topics in orthopaedic surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of a computerised navigation technique to assist arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Zhu

Lü

Han

et al. 2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Based on biomechanical cadaver studies, anatomical double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) was introduced to achieve better stability in the knee, particularly in respect of rotatory loads. Previously, the success of ACL reconstruction was believed to be mainly dependent on correct positioning of the graft, irrespective of the number of bundles for which computer-assisted surgery was developed to avoid malpositioning of the tunnel. The aim of this study was to compare rotational and translational stability after computer-navigated standard single-bundle and anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Methods The authors investigated 42 consecutive patients who had undergone the single-bundle or double-bundle ACL reconstruction procedure using autogenous hamstring tendon grafts and ENDOBUTTON fixation in patients who had been followed up for a minimum of 24 months. Postoperative anteroposterior and rotational laxity was measured with the KT3000 and compared between groups. Results Both surgical procedures significantly improve rotational and translational stability compared to the preoperative ACL-deficient knee (P<0.05). No significant differences were registered between groups with regard to anteroposterior displacement of the tibia. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores were significantly higher in the double-bundle group. However, the results were excellent in both groups. Conclusions The use of computer-assisted ACL reconstruction, which is a highly accurate method of graft placement, could be useful for inexperienced surgeons to avoid malposition. Long-term results of at least five years are needed to determine whether double-bundle ACL reconstruction, which was associated with improved rotational laxity and significantly better IKDC and Lysholm scores compared to the standard single-bundle ACL reconstruction procedure, exerts an influence in terms of avoiding osteoarthritis or meniscus degeneration.

show abstract

“…Controlled laboratory studies have shown superiority of DB ACL reconstructions in restoring knee kinematics for both translations and rotations compared with single bundle reconstruction [31,[33][34][35][36]. Radford and Amis showed that DB reconstruction controlled anterior laxity better than single bundle across the range of knee flexion [34].…”

Section: Biomechanical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Carmont

Scheffler

Spalding

et al. 2011

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Single– versus two–femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique

Cited by 224 publications

References 23 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?

Application of a computerised navigation technique to assist arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Anatomical single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About