Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients With Significant Passive Anterior Tibial Subluxation

被引:9
|
作者
Lin, Lin [1 ]
Wang, Haijun [1 ]
Wang, Yongjian [1 ]
Wang, Jian [1 ]
Liu, Yang [1 ]
Yu, Jiakuo [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ Third Hosp, Inst Sports Med, 49 North Garden Rd, Beijing 100191, Peoples R China
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE | 2022年 / 50卷 / 04期
关键词
anterior cruciate ligament; passive anterior tibial subluxation; single bundle; double bundle; knee stability; VITRO ROBOTIC ASSESSMENT; ANATOMIC DOUBLE-BUNDLE; ANTEROLATERAL LIGAMENT; ACL RECONSTRUCTION; HAMSTRING AUTOGRAFT; DEFICIENT KNEES; GRAFT FAILURE; RISK-FACTORS; REVISION; SIZE;
D O I
10.1177/03635465211072562
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
Background: Passive anterior tibial subluxation (PATS) is often observed in patients with anterior cruciate ligament tears. Postoperative outcomes of double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with significant PATS (>6 mm) are unclear. Hypothesis: DB-ACLR could achieve better stability and clinical outcomes than SB-ACLR in patients with PATS >6 mm. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Retrospective analysis was peformed on 626 consecutive patients who underwent primary anatomic ACLR between October 2016 and November 2017. Anterior subluxation of the lateral and medial compartments in extension relative to the femoral condyles was measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. Among patients who demonstrated significant PATS (>6 mm) in the lateral compartment, 54 who underwent DB-ACLR (study group) were matched to 54 who underwent SB-ACLR (control group). PATS, stability (pivot-shift test and KT-2000 arthrometer), the Lysholm score, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade were investigated preoperatively and at 3- to 4-year follow-up. Results: The preoperative mean PATS values in the lateral and medial compartments were not significantly different between groups (control vs study: lateral compartment, 8.1 +/- 1.8 vs 8.5 +/- 2.1 mm; medial compartment, 5.2 +/- 1.9 vs 5.4 +/- 1.9 mm; P > .05). Postoperatively, mean PATS values in the lateral and medial compartments of the study group were significantly improved as compared with the control group (control vs study: lateral compartment, 5.9 +/- 2.8 vs 3.2 +/- 4.1 mm; medial compartment, 3.7 +/- 2.9 vs 1.4 +/- 2.3 mm; P < .05). Significantly superior results were found for knee stability in the study group regarding the Lachman test (grade 0/1/2/3, study vs control: 29/22/3/0 vs 16/28/10/0; P = .031), pivot-shift test (grade 0/1/2/3, study vs control: 44/9/1/0 vs 30/19/5/0; P = .023), and KT-2000 arthrometer (study vs control: 2.5 +/- 1.5 vs 3.9 +/- 1.4 mm; P < .001). Clinical scores showed significantly better results in the study group in terms of IKDC score (study vs control: 87.9 +/- 8.7 vs 81.2 +/- 15.0; P = .01), Tegner activity score (study vs control: 6.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.9 +/- 1.5; P < .001), and Lysholm score (study vs control: 91.7 +/- 7.0 vs 86.3 +/- 11.4; P = .004). Conclusion: DB-ACLR achieved better knee stability and clinical outcomes when compared with SB-ACLR in patients with PATS >6 mm at 3- to 4-year follow-up.
引用
收藏
页码:943 / 950
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Jarvela, Timo
    Jarvela, Sally
    [J]. CLINICS IN SPORTS MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (01) : 81 - +
  • [2] Editorial Commentary: Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Yoshiya, Shinichi
    [J]. ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2016, 32 (01): : 43 - 43
  • [3] A systematic review of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Longo, Umile Giuseppe
    Buchmann, Stefan
    Franceschetti, Edoardo
    Maffulli, Nicola
    Denaro, Vincenzo
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL BULLETIN, 2012, 103 (01) : 147 - 168
  • [4] Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults
    Tiamklang, Thavatchai
    Sumanont, Sermsak
    Foocharoen, Thanit
    Laopaiboon, Malinee
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2012, (11):
  • [5] Comparisons of anatomic double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Moghtadaei, M.
    Farahini, H.
    Jabalameli, M.
    Zangi, M.
    Siavashi, B.
    Bagherifard, A.
    [J]. MINERVA ORTOPEDICA E TRAUMATOLOGICA, 2012, 63 (03) : 201 - 207
  • [6] Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Siebold, Rainer
    Dehler, Carsten
    Ellert, Thomas
    [J]. ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2008, 24 (02): : 137 - 145
  • [7] Mechanical behavior of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament repair with a single tibial tunnel
    Maestro Fernandez, A.
    Fernandez Lombardia, J.
    Paz Aparicio, A.
    Rodriguez Lopez, L.
    Garcia Gonzalez, P.
    Fernandez Lombardia, M., I
    Guerrero Rosales, M. A.
    Jorge Rellan, J.
    Vigil Castiello, F. J.
    [J]. TRAUMA-SPAIN, 2010, 21 (02): : 97 - 101
  • [8] Single-bundle or double-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis
    Li, Yu-Lin
    Ning, Guang-Zhi
    Wu, Qiang
    Wu, Qiu-Li
    Li, Yan
    Hao, Yan
    Feng, Shi-Qing
    [J]. KNEE, 2014, 21 (01): : 28 - 37
  • [9] Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Assessment With Vertical Jump Test
    Ventura, Alberto
    Iori, Stefano
    Legnani, Claudio
    Terzaghi, Clara
    Borgo, Enrico
    Albisetti, Walter
    [J]. ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2013, 29 (07): : 1201 - 1210
  • [10] Intraoperative comparisons of knee kinematics of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Plaweski, Stephane
    Grimaldi, Mathieu
    Courvoisier, Aurelien
    Wimsey, Simon
    [J]. KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2011, 19 (08) : 1277 - 1286