Clinical Evaluation of Anatomic Double-bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedure Using Hamstring Tendon Grafts: Comparisons Among 3 Different Procedures
Overview
Affiliations
Purpose: To compare the clinical outcome of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with that of nonanatomic single- and double-bundle reconstructions.
Type Of Study: Prospective comparative cohort study.
Methods: Seventy-two patients with unilateral ACL-deficient knees were randomly divided into 3 groups. Concerning all background factors, there were no statistical differences among the 3 groups. In group S (n = 24), single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed. In group N-AD (n = 24), nonanatomic double-bundle reconstruction was carried out. In group AD (n = 24), anatomic double-bundle reconstruction was performed. One surgeon performed all operations using hamstring tendon autografts. Each patient underwent clinical examinations, before surgery and at 2 years.
Results: No intraoperative and postoperative complications were experienced in each group. There were no significant differences concerning the time for operation among the 3 groups. The statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the postoperative side-to-side anterior laxity among the 3 groups (P = .006). The laxity was significantly less (P = .002) in group AD (1.1 mm) than in group S (2.8 mm), while there was no significant difference (P = .072) between groups AD and N-AD. Concerning the pivot-shift test, group AD was significantly superior to group S (P = .025). There were no significant differences in the range of knee motion, the muscle torque, and the International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation.
Conclusions: On the basis of the KT-2000 measurement, the side-to-side anterior laxity of our anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction was significantly better than that of the single-bundle reconstruction with the hamstring tendon graft, although there were no significant differences in the other clinical measures among any of the 3 procedures.
Level Of Evidence: Level II.
Suruga M, Iriuchishima T, Yahagi Y, Iwama G, Horaguchi T, Aizawa S Indian J Orthop. 2024; 58(5):510-516.
PMID: 38694688 PMC: 11058129. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-024-01131-5.
Suzuki N, Watanabe A, Ninomiya T, Nakajima H, Horii M, Watanabe S Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2024; 35:59-64.
PMID: 38236496 PMC: 10792093. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmart.2023.11.004.
Kawakami J, Hisanaga S, Yoshimoto Y, Mashimo T, Kaneko T, Yoshimura N PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0293944.
PMID: 37939095 PMC: 10631660. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293944.
Sato D, Inoue M, Kasahara Y, Hamano H, Suzuki R, Kondo E Orthop J Sports Med. 2023; 11(4):23259671231162389.
PMID: 37113140 PMC: 10126626. DOI: 10.1177/23259671231162389.
Suzuki M, Ishida T, Samukawa M, Matsumoto H, Ito Y, Aoki Y Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(18).
PMID: 36142034 PMC: 9517280. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811761.