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
  • [31] Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Techniques Did Not Differ in Terms of Clinical Outcomes at 2 or 5 Years
    Arciero, Robert A.
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2016, 98 (22):
  • [32] Anatomic single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis
    Neel Desai
    Haukur Björnsson
    Volker Musahl
    Mohit Bhandari
    Max Petzold
    Freddie H. Fu
    Kristian Samuelsson
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2014, 22 : 1009 - 1023
  • [33] Anatomic single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis
    Desai, Neel
    Bjornsson, Haukur
    Musahl, Volker
    Bhandari, Mohit
    Petzold, Max
    Fu, Freddie H.
    Samuelsson, Kristian
    KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2014, 22 (05) : 1009 - 1023
  • [34] Editorial Commentary: No Difference in Knee Osteoarthritis After Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Mayr, Hermann O.
    Stoehr, Amelie
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2019, 35 (03): : 1004 - 1005
  • [35] Prospective Randomized Clinical Evaluation of Conventional Single-Bundle, Anatomic Single-Bundle, and Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction 281 Cases With 3-to 5-Year Follow-up
    Hussein, Mohsen
    van Eck, Carola F.
    Cretnik, Andrej
    Dinevski, Dejan
    Fu, Freddie H.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2012, 40 (03): : 512 - 520
  • [36] Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction restricts knee extension in knees with hyperextension
    M. Ettinger
    M. Petri
    D. Guenther
    C. Liu
    C. Krusche
    E. Liodakis
    U-V Albrecht
    C. Krettek
    M. Jagodzinski
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2013, 21 : 2057 - 2062
  • [37] Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction restricts knee extension in knees with hyperextension
    Ettinger, M.
    Petri, M.
    Guenther, D.
    Liu, C.
    Krusche, C.
    Liodakis, E.
    Albrecht, U-V
    Krettek, C.
    Jagodzinski, M.
    KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2013, 21 (09) : 2057 - 2062
  • [38] The Effect of Remnant Tissue Preservation in Anatomic Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction on Knee Stability and Graft Maturation
    Takahashi, Tsuneari
    Kimura, Masashi
    Hagiwara, Keiichi
    Ohsawa, Takashi
    Takeshita, Katsushi
    JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY, 2019, 32 (06) : 565 - 576
  • [39] Anatomic Single-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Is Possible with Use of the Modified Transtibial Technique
    Lee, Joon Kyu
    Lee, Sahnghoon
    Seong, Sang Cheol
    Lee, Myung Chul
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2014, 96A (08): : 664 - 672
  • [40] Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Anatomic Aimers
    Christel, Pascal
    Sahasrabudhe, Amit
    Basdekis, Georges
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2008, 24 (10): : 1146 - 1151