Comparative study of knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with or without fluoroscopic assistance: a prospective study of 73 cases. Comparison between single-and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial. Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A prospective randomized analysis of three techniques. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: randomized clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study with 2-year follow-up. Outcomes after conventional versus computer-navigated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Double-bundle versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the horizontal femoral position: a prospective, randomized study. Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized study of three surgical methods. Prospective comparative study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the double-bundle and single-bundle techniques.
Correct placement of both tibial and femoral tunnels is one of the main factors for a favorable clinical outcome after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We used an original system of computer assisted surgery (CAS). The system, based on fluoroscopic guidance combined with special graphical software of image analyzing, showed to the surgeon, before drilling, the recommended placement of tibial and femoral tunnel centers. We compared the first anatomical and clinical results of this procedure to the usual one single incision technique.
                We conducted a prospective study on 73 patients; 37 patients were operated on with CAS and 36 without CAS, by the same senior surgeon. The mean age was 27 years for both groups. Every patient was reviewed at an average of 2.2 years (range 1-4.5) by an independent observer, using IKDC scoring system, KT-1000, and passive stress radiographs.
                Time between ACL rupture and reconstruction averaged 30 months for both groups. CAS needed 9.3 min extra surgery time. Clinical evaluation was graded from A to C as per the IKDC scoring system: 67.6% A, 29.7% B, 2.7% C with CAS; and 60% A, 37.1% B, 2.9% C without CAS. IKDC subjective knee evaluation score averaged 89.7 with CAS and 89.5 without CAS. Pre operative KT-1000 maxi manual differential laxity averaged 7. At revision time, all the patients after CAS had a differential laxity less than 2 and 97.7% without CAS. Stress X-rays differential laxity averaged 2.4 mm with CAS and 3 mm without CAS. The area of dispersion of the tunnels' center was smaller on the femoral side using the CAS method. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups using IKDC score, KT-1000 and passive stress radiographs.
                The CAS method provided a more accurate and reproducible tunnels placement without clinical significant effect. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction popularity is increasing with the aim to reproduce native ACL anatomy and improve ACL reconstruction outcome. However, to date, only a few randomized clinical studies have been published.
                The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the clinical results of single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction.
                Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.
                Seventy patients with a chronic unilateral ACL rupture who underwent arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction using a hamstring graft were randomized to receive a single- (SB) or double-bundle (DB) reconstruction. Both groups were comparable with regard to preoperative data. A double-incision surgical technique was adopted in both groups. The graft was fixed by looping the hamstring tendons around a bony (DB) or a metallic (SB) bridge on the tibial side and with interference screws reinforced with a staple on the femur. The same rehabilitation protocol was adopted. Outcome assessment was performed by a blinded, independent observer using the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the new International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and KT-1000 arthrometer evaluation.
                All the patients reached a minimum follow-up of 2 years. No differences between the 2 groups were observed in terms of KOOS and IKDC subjective score. A statistically significant difference in favor of the DB group was found with the VAS (P < .03). The objective IKDC final scores showed statistically significantly more "normal knees" in the DB group than in the SB group (P = .03). There was 1 stability failure in the DB group and 3 in the SB group. The KT-1000 arthrometer data showed a statistically significant decrease in the average anterior tibial translation in the DB group (1.2 mm DB vs 2.1 mm SB; P < .03). The incidence of a residual pivot-shift glide was 14% in DB and 26% in SB (P = .08).
                In the 2-year minimum follow-up, DB ACL reconstructions showed better VAS, anterior knee laxity, and final objective IKDC scores than SB. However, longer follow-up and accurate instrumented in vivo rotational stability assessment are needed. One hundred and twenty-seven patients who had a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament agreed to participate in a prospective, randomized study of three arthroscopically assisted reconstruction techniques. One hundred and twenty-five patients (125 reconstructions) were evaluated after a mean duration of follow-up of forty-two months (range, two to five years). Group I included forty patients who had a two-incision reconstruction with use of an autogenous semitendinosus-gracilis graft, group II consisted of forty patients who had a two-incision reconstruction with use of an autogenous patellar-ligament graft, and group III included forty-five patients who had a single-incision reconstruction (endoscopic technique) with use of an autogenous patellar-ligament graft. The male-female ratio, age range, level of athletic activity, interval between the injury and the reconstruction, previous operative procedures, and associated injuries were similar in all three groups. The same postoperative rehabilitation protocol was followed for all patients. Testing with a KT-2000 arthrometer at maximum manual force was done at the follow-up evaluation; the difference in laxity between the involved knee and the contralateral knee was three millimeters or less in thirty-three patients (83 per cent) in group I, thirty-seven patients (93 per cent) in group II, and thirty-nine patients (87 per cent) in group III. A difference of two millimeters or less was found in thirty patients (75 per cent) in group I, thirty-one patients (78 per cent) in group II, and thirty-five patients (78 per cent) in group III. Thirty-five patients (88 per cent) in group I, thirty-eight patients (95 per cent) in group II, and forty patients (89 per cent) in group III returned to at least the same level of athletic activity. Four grafts (two in group I and two in group II) failed as a result of trauma. There was one additional failure in groups I and III, as evidenced by a difference of nine and seven millimeters, respectively, on instrumented testing of laxity. The significant findings were that no knee was rated D according to the system of the International Knee Documentation Committee (p < 0.002, 94 per cent confidence level) and that fewer additional operative procedures were done on patients in group III (p < 0.08). Also, it was found that the patients in group II returned to a greater level of athletic activity (p < 0.02) and that a higher percentage of the patients in this group had a difference of three millimeters or less on testing with the KT-2000 arthrometer than in the other two groups (p < 0.08). However, with the numbers available, there were no significant differences in the over-all outcome among the three groups (p > 0.1). Importantly, the rate of failure was not greater and the outcomes were not less satisfactory for the late reconstructions than they were for the acute reconstructions (those performed less than three weeks after the injury), including those done with an autogenous semitendinosus-gracilis graft in a chronically unstable knee. One aspect of the debate over the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament is whether it should be carried out with the single-bundle or double-bundle technique.
                The double-bundle technique results in fewer graft failures than the single-bundle technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
                Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
                A total of 153 patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autografts using aperture interference screw fixation: single-bundle technique (SB group, n = 78) and double-bundle technique (DB group, n = 75). The evaluation methods were clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometric measurement, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Lysholm knee scores, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. All of the operations were performed by 1 experienced orthopaedic surgeon, and all clinical assessments were made by 2 blinded and independent examiners. A musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to the clinical data made the MRI interpretation.
                There were no differences between the study groups preoperatively. Ninety percent of patients (n = 138) were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up (range, 24-37 months). Eight patients (7 in the SB group and 1 in the DB group) had graft failure during the follow-up and had anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery (P = .04). In addition, 7 patients (5 in the SB group and 2 in the DB group) had an invisible graft on the MRI assessment at the 2-year follow-up. Also, the anteromedial bundle was partially invisible in 2 patients and the posterolateral bundle in 9 patients. Together, the total number of failures and invisible grafts were significantly higher in the SB group (12 patients, 15%) than the DB group (3 patients, 4%) (P = .024). No significant group differences were found in the knee scores or stability evaluations at the follow-up.
                This 2-year randomized trial showed that the revision rate of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was significantly lower with the double-bundle technique than that with the single-bundle technique. However, additional years of follow-up are needed to reveal the long-term results. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to assess biomechanical, radiographic, and functional results after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction by use of a navigation system.
                ACL reconstruction was performed by use of the OrthoPilot navigation system (B. Braun-Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) in 40 patients (group 1); and in another 40 patients, surgery was done by the standard manual targeting technique (group 2). The anterior laxity was measured with a KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA). Femoral and tibial tunnel position was evaluated radiologically according to the method described by Bernard and Hertel and by Harner et al., respectively. The questionnaire-based Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scales were included to compare the functional state in both groups.
                The knees in group 1 were as stable as those in group 2 during the arthrometer testing, with a lower value of dispersion. The postoperative Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores had the same value in both groups. Statistical differences existed with regard to anterior-posterior femoral tunnel placement when the navigated and standard techniques were compared; in the navigated group, more exact results were found. No significant complications were observed.
                The only difference that we found between the navigated and standard groups was in radiographic tunnel position measurement. The computer-assisted navigation technique in our study resulted in more accurate tunnel placement in the femur (but not the tibia) than the traditional arthroscopic technique. However, the performed standard radiographic measurements are of limited precision in principle. Functional scales and stability tests gave similar results in both groups.
                Level I, therapeutic study. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the double bundle technique (DB) improves stability in the knee compared with the single bundle technique (SB) with the femoral tunnel in a more horizontal position (2 or 10 o'clock). We conducted a randomized, prospective study. Forty patients were randomized to the DB group (20 patients) and the SB group (20 patients). Four-stranded semitendinosus and gracilis autologous grafts were used in the SB group and in the DB group the conventional four tunnel technique was carried out using the same tendons. The IKDC complete form was used for the preoperative evaluation, and in the follow-up the IKDC subjective knee evaluation form, IKDC current health assessment form and IKDC knee examination form were used. Anteroposterior (AP) laxity was evaluated by standardised and forced radiology in all patients. No significant preoperative between-group differences were found. During the follow-up, no differences were found between groups, except for significant between-group differences (P < 0.05) between the preoperative and postoperative evaluations. The IKDC index also showed significant differences in the 2-year follow-up. Median scores increased from 48 (range 41-54) to 81 (range 75-87) (P = 0.01) in the SB group and from 52 (range 46-58) to 80 (range 72-88) (P = 0.02) in the DB group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of functional scores. In conclusion, the 2 and 10 o'clock placements showed no significant differences between SB and DB techniques in the pivot-shift test, manual and radiological anterior posterior laxity and IKDC scores. However, significant between-group differences were found between the preoperative and postoperative evaluations. Biomechanical studies show increased anterior and rotational stability with double-bundle (DB) compared to single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of four-tunnel DB ACL reconstruction.
                Seventy patients undergoing arthroscopic hamstring ACL reconstruction were prospectively randomized to DB (n = 35) or SB (n = 35) groups. Each bundle fixation was by means of a femoral EndoButton CL and a tibial biodegradable interference screw. Demographic data were comparable between groups, and the average age of all patients was 29 years. The average follow-up was 19 months for both groups and included a history, clinical evaluation with knee scores, and radiographs.
                The subjective results were similar in groups. The subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) 2000 score was 88 P for DB versus 90 P for SB; the Lysholm score was 90 P for DB versus 93 P for SB; and the Cincinnati knee score was 91 P for DB versus 92 P for SB. The objective IKDC was significantly higher for DB: 78% "A" (P < .000) and 19% "B" compared to 24% "A" and 68% "B" for SB. The average KT-1000 side-to-side difference was 1.0 mm for DB and 1.6 mm for SB (P = .054) and the pivot shift test was negative in 97% for DB (P = .01) and 71% for SB. The range of motion was comparable for both groups.
                Our study shows a significant advantage in anterior and rotational stability as well as objective IKDC for four-tunnel DB ACL reconstruction compared to SB ACL reconstruction. The subjective Cincinnati knee score, the Lysholm score, and the subjective IKDC 2000 did not show any statistical difference for one or the other technique.
                Level I, randomized controlled trial. A prospective randomized study was performed to determine the differences in results between three methods of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autogenous bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (group 1), semitendinosus and gracilis tendon graft reconstruction combined with an extraarticular procedure (group 2), and semitendinosus and gracilis tendon graft reconstruction alone (group 3). Preoperatively, there were no significant differences between groups. At a mean of 35.4 +/- 11.6 months postoperatively, 102 patients returned for evaluation. International Knee Documentation Committee knee evaluation revealed no significant differences in symptoms, function, return to pre-injury activity, harvest site abnormalities, or limitation of motion between groups 1 and 3. Patients in group 2 had a higher incidence of patellofemoral crepitation and loss of motion than did patients in group 3. The mean manual maximum KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was 2.1 +/- 2.0 mm in group 1, which was statistically significantly better than the difference in group 3 (3.1 +/- 2.3 mm). Final knee rating showed that 34 of 35 patients in group 1, 23 of 34 patients in group 2, and 26 of 33 patients in group 3 had a normal or nearly normal overall knee rating. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a semitendinosus and gracilis or a patellar tendon autograft may yield similar subjective results; however, the patellar tendon autograft may provide better objective stability in the long term. In addition, there appears to be no benefit to combining an intraarticular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with an extraarticular procedure. The intent of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is to reproduce the normal anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and improve knee joint rotational stability. However, no consensus has been reached on the advantages of this technique over the single-bundle technique.
                We hypothesized that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could provide better intraoperative stability and clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction.
                Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
                Forty patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury in one knee were recruited; 20 were allocated to a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group and 20 to a single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group. Intraoperative stabilities at 30 degrees of knee flexion were compared between the 2 groups using a navigation system. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, Lachman and pivot-shift test results, and radiographic stabilities were also compared between the 2 groups after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.
                Intraoperative anterior and rotational stabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the double-bundle group were significantly better than those in single-bundle group (P = .020 and P < .001, respectively). Nineteen patients (95%) in each group were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores were similar in the 2 groups at 2-year follow-up (P > .05). Furthermore, stability results of the Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and radiologic findings at 2-year follow-up failed to reveal any significant intergroup differences (P > .05).
                Although double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction produces better intraoperative stabilities than single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the 2 modalities were found to be similar in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative stabilities after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.
A favourable effect of computer assisted surgery for cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee compared with conventional reconstructions could neither be demonstrated nor refuted. There is insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of CAS. There is a need for improved reporting of future studies of this technology.