Single-tunnel anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has the same effectiveness as double femoral, double tibial tunnel: A prospective randomized study

Arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments with allograft: single-tunnel single-bundle versus single-tunnel double-bundle techniques

Purpose

To compare the clinical results of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the single-tunnel single-bundle (STSB) technique versus the single-tunnel double-bundle (STDB) technique.

Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center, single-surgeon study based on data collected from March 2012 to June 2013. According to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 78 patients (64 males, 14 females; mean age, 25.1 years) who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with anterior tibialis tendon allografts through either the STSB technique (36 cases) or the STDB technique (42 cases) in our department were recruited. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scores were used to evaluate the subjective function of the knee joint during the postoperative follow-up. The Lachman test and pivot shift test were used to objectively assess the stability of the knee.

Results

The average follow-up duration was 24.9 ± 1.8 months in the STSB group and 24.6 ± 1.7 months in the STDB group (P > 0.05). Patients in both groups recovered to the preoperative sports level with few complications. The postoperative Lysholm score (86.1 ± 7.5 vs. 47.7 ± 9.0 in the STSB group; 87.0 ± 7.1 vs. 48.2 ± 8.3 in the STDB group), IKDC score (87.8 ± 7.2 vs. 49.3 ± 6.1 in the STSB group; 88.7 ± 6.6 vs. 49.8 ± 6.3 in the STDB group), Tegner score (6.5 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.3 in the STSB group; 6.6 ± 1.2 vs. 2.6 ± 1.2 in the STDB group), Lachman test positive rate (8.3% vs. 89.9% in the STSB group; 7.1% vs. 85.7% in the STDB group), and pivot shift test positive rate (27.8% vs. 63.9% in the STSB group; 7.1% vs. 69.0% in the STDB group) were significantly improved compared to the preoperative status in both groups (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups at the final follow-up (P > 0.05), except for the pivot shift test positive rate in the STDB group versus the STSB group (7.1% vs. 27.8%, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The STDB technique achieved a satisfactory clinical outcome with better rotational stability compared to the traditional STSB technique and therefore provided an effective option for ACL reconstruction.

Level of evidence

Case series, Level IV.

Evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament surgical reconstruction through finite element analysis

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most common knee injuries. The ACL reconstruction surgery aims to restore healthy knee function by replacing the injured ligament with a graft. Proper selection of the optimal surgery parameters is a complex task. To this end, we developed an automated modeling framework that accepts subject-specific geometries and produces finite element knee models incorporating different surgical techniques. Initially, we developed a reference model of the intact knee, validated with data provided by the Open Knee(s) project. This helped us evaluate the effectiveness of estimating ligament stiffness directly from MRI. Next, we performed a plethora of “what-if” simulations, comparing responses with the reference model. We found that (a) increasing graft pretension and radius reduces relative knee displacement, (b) the correlation of graft radius and tension should not be neglected, (c) graft fixation angle of 20\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$^{\circ }$$\end{document}∘ can reduce knee laxity, and (d) single-versus double-bundle techniques demonstrate comparable performance in restraining knee translation. In most cases, these findings confirm reported values from comparative clinical studies. The numerical models are made publicly available, allowing for experimental reuse and lowering the barriers for meta-studies. The modeling approach proposed here can complement orthopedic surgeons in their decision-making.

A Modified Anatomic Transtibial Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Provides Reliable Bone Tunnel Positioning

Purpose

To evaluate the femoral and tibial tunnel positions via a modified anatomic transtibial double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

Patients who underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the transtibial tunnel creation technique were identified. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed for 94 knees using the transtibial tunnel creation technique. Tunnel aperture configurations and center positions of the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) tunnels via postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography were evaluated.

Results

There were 94 knees included. Regarding the intra-articular tunnel aperture configurations, the AM and PL tunnels overlapped at the femoral and tibial aperture in 66.0% and 94.7% cases, respectively. The mean femoral bone tunnel center was located at 23.0 ± 3.9% in the posterior-to-anterior ratio and 28.7 ± 6.0% in the proximal-to-distal ratio for the AM tunnels and at 32.8 ± 4.7% and 51.2 ± 5.2% for the PL tunnels, respectively. In the tibial tunnels, the mean AM tunnel center was located at 31.4 ± 3.6% in the anterior-to-posterior ratio and 44.3 ± 1.8% in the medial-to-lateral ratio and at 47.5 ± 3.8% and 44.3 ± 1.9% in the PL tunnel center, respectively. The femoral tunnels of outliers, both those created in nonanatomic positions as well as the posterior wall blowouts, were revealed in 7.4% cases. The nonanatomical bone tunnel group had significant heavier weight patients, lower tibial posterior slope, and were anterior in the AM and PL tunnel position. Posterior wall blowouts were related to posterior and proximal PL bone tunnel positions.

Conclusions

Modified transtibial double-bundle ACL reconstruction is a reliable tunnel creation technique with anatomic placement in 92.6% of the cases. The modification required that partially superimposing configuration of the 2 tibial tunnel apertures. The nonanatomic tunnels were related to patients of heavier weight and lower tibial posterior sloped knees, whereas the posterior wall blowouts were related to the posterior and proximal PL bone tunnel positions.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Subjective assessment reported by patients shows differences between single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, systematic review and meta-analysis

To determine the functional recovery, active reincorporation, and anteroposterior and rotational stability of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using arthroscopy techniques with simple-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB). The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier platform), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley platform), Web of Science, and CINAHL. Level I and II studies involving anterior cruciate ligament arthroscopy were included in the search. Records were screened by title and abstract and assessed the risk of bias of selected studies. Meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 software were conducted on the following outcomes: knee functionality, objective measurements of knee stability, rotational knee stability and knee anterior stability, sports reincorporation, and subjective assessments. Twenty-four studies of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis (1707 patients) for Lysholm score, Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner score, KT-1000/2000, Lachman test, Objective IKDC score, and Pivot-Shift test. A return to pre-injury level showed a significant decrease in the Lysholm score (mean difference, - 0.99; 95% CI - 1.71 to - 0.40; P = 0.007) and Tegner score (mean difference, - 0.07; 95% CI, - 0.13 to - 0.01; P = 0.02) at DB reconstruction, similar to the knee functionality outcome of the subjective IKDC score (mean difference - 1.42; 95% CI - 2.46 to - 0.38; P = 0.007). There is no clear or significant difference in clinical stability and knee function or in sports incorporation with the true difference occurring in the subjective assessment.

Is a tourniquet necessary in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?: A randomized controlled study protocol

BACKGROUND

In the past few decades, the number of surgery of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) implemented in the outpatient centers has dramatically enhanced. There is still a lack of effective randomized controlled trials in the literature to demonstrate the effectiveness of tourniquets. As a kind of prospective clinical trial, this research protocol is conducted to compare the results of ACLR with and without the use of a tourniquet.

METHODS

All the patients aged 18 or over who underwent the selective primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in our hospital from November 2020 to January 2022 are eligible to take part in our experiment. Exclusion criteria are history of peripheral neuropathy, pregnancy, lumbar radiculopathy, or surgery to the injured or contralateral knee. After the written informed consent is given, the patients participating in the study are randomly assigned to the tourniquet group (group 1) and the tourniquet free group (group 2) on the day of operation, through utilizing the computer-generated random table with 10 members in each group. And the assignments were kept in an opaque and sealed envelope. Any comments on visual difficulties in the process of operative time, arthroscopy, complications, and total bleeding from suction and drainage, as well as the reduction of postoperative hemoglobin are assessed as the parameters. The software of SPSS v. 24 is applied for all the statistical analyses.

RESULTS

This protocol will provide a reliable theoretical basis for the following research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry6240).