No difference in osteoarthritis, but less graft failures after 5 years, comparing anatomic double-bundle to anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction

被引:0
|
作者
Aga, Cathrine [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Troan, Ingrid [2 ]
Heir, Stig [1 ]
Risberg, May Arna [2 ,4 ]
Rana, Tariq [2 ]
Johansen, Steinar [5 ]
Fagerland, Morten Wang [3 ,4 ,6 ]
Engebretsen, Lars [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Martina Hansens Hosp, Gjettum, Norway
[2] Oslo Univ Hosp, Oslo, Norway
[3] Oslo Sports Trauma Res Ctr, Oslo, Norway
[4] Norwegian Sch Sport Sci, Oslo, Norway
[5] Lovisenberg Diaconal Hosp, Oslo, Norway
[6] Oslo Univ Hosp, Oslo Ctr Biostat & Epidemiol, Oslo, Norway
关键词
ACL reconstruction; double-bundle; graft failure; osteoarthritis; revision; ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT; IN-SITU FORCES; FOLLOW-UP; REVISION; INJURY; PREDICTORS; COHORT; RISK; KOOS;
D O I
10.1002/ksa.12528
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) between the anatomic single-bundle (SB) and anatomic double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique after 5-year follow-up (FU). Secondary objectives were to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinical examination, activity level, functional tests and graft failures between the two groups.MethodsThe study was a secondary analysis after 5-year FU of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Clinical Trials NCT01033188). One hundred and twenty patients between 18 and 40 years were randomized to either anatomic SB or anatomic DB reconstruction. The Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification grade >= 2 and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas criteria score >= 2 were used for defining OA. Additionally, PROMs were obtained and clinical examinations of the knees were performed. Finally, the number of patients experiencing graft failure in each group was recorded.ResultsRadiographic imaging was performed in 39 patients in the SB group and in 37 patients in the DB group. Four patients (10%) in the SB group and two (5%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the KL classification (p = 0.28). Five (13%) in the SB group and three (8%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the OARSI atlas criteria (p = 0.59; difference 5.0% [95% confidence interval, CI: -0.10 to 0.20]). There were no significant differences in the PROMs, clinical examinations, activity levels, or functional tests when comparing the two groups. Of initially 62 SB patients, 14 (23%) experienced graft failure compared to 4 (7%) of the 58 DB patients (p = 0.015; difference 0.016 [95% CI: 0.03-0.29]).ConclusionAt 5-year FU, there were no significant differences in the incidence of OA, PROMS, or other clinical findings comparing the anatomic DB to anatomic SB ACL reconstructed patients. There were fewer graft failures among patients treated with anatomic DB ACL reconstruction.Level of EvidenceII.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Single-bundle MCL reconstruction with anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction does not restore knee kinematics
    Weimin Zhu
    Junjun Zhu
    Brandon Marshall
    Monica A. Linde
    Patrick Smolinski
    Freddie H. Fu
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2020, 28 : 2687 - 2696
  • [22] Single-bundle MCL reconstruction with anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction does not restore knee kinematics
    Zhu, Weimin
    Zhu, Junjun
    Marshall, Brandon
    Linde, Monica A.
    Smolinski, Patrick
    Fu, Freddie H.
    KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2020, 28 (08) : 2687 - 2696
  • [23] Editorial Commentary: ACL Reconstruction: Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle
    Lubowitz, James H.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2015, 31 (06): : 1197 - 1198
  • [24] A Comparison of Central Anatomic Single-Bundle Reconstruction and Anatomic Double-Bundle Reconstruction in Anteroposterior and Rotational Knee Stability: Intraoperative Biomechanical Evaluation
    Ikuta, Yasunari
    Nakamae, Atsuo
    Shimizu, Ryo
    Ishikawa, Masakazu
    Nakasa, Tomoyuki
    Ochi, Mitsuo
    Adachi, Nobuo
    JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY, 2022, 35 (03) : 273 - 279
  • [25] Challenge Accepted: Description of an Ongoing NIH-Funded Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Anatomic Single-Bundle Versus Anatomic Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction
    Irrgang, James J.
    Tashman, Scott
    Moore, Charity
    Fu, Freddie H.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2012, 28 (06): : 745 - 747
  • [26] Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction
    Eriksson, Ejnar
    KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2007, 15 (08) : 945 - 945
  • [27] Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction
    Ejnar Eriksson
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2007, 15 : 945 - 945
  • [28] Stability evaluation of single-bundle and double-bundle reconstruction during navigated ACL reconstruction
    Ishibashi, Yasuyuki
    Tsuda, Eiichi
    Fukuda, Akira
    Tsukada, Harehiko
    Toh, Satoshi
    SPORTS MEDICINE AND ARTHROSCOPY REVIEW, 2008, 16 (02): : 77 - 83
  • [29] Tunnel Widening After Anatomic Double-Bundle and Mid-Position Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Achtnich, Andrea
    Stiepani, Heiner
    Forkel, Phillipp
    Metzlaff, Sebastian
    Haenninen, Enrique Lopes
    Petersen, Wolf
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2013, 29 (09): : 1514 - 1524
  • [30] Challenge Accepted: Description of an Ongoing NIH-Funded Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Anatomic Single-Bundle Versus Anatomic Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Reply
    D'Agostino, Ralph B., Jr.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2012, 28 (06): : 747 - 748