COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadriceps tendon-bone autografts.

Arthroscopy 2009 January
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare postoperative knee stability and functional scores between single- and double- bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with the use of quadriceps tendon-bone autografts at a 2-year follow-up.

METHODS: The records of 59 patients who had ACL reconstruction between January 2005 and April 2006 were analyzed retrospectively. Twenty-eight patients had single-bundle reconstruction (group S) and 31 received double-bundle reconstruction (group D). Ligament stability was assessed with the Lachman and pivot-shift tests and a KT-2000 arthrometer. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores were employed to evaluate the functional outcomes.

RESULTS: The postoperative mean side-to-side difference for group S was 2.64 mm and 1.79 mm for group D, a difference that was found to be statistically significant (P = .020). Regarding the pivot-shift test, 3 patients had grade 1+ and 1 patient had grade 2+ pivot-shift in group S, while no patients had abnormal pivot-shift in group D (P = .093). The patients who reported grade A or B on IKDC scores were 24 and 28 in group S and D, respectively (P > .1). On the questionnaire of the twisting activity, although statistical difference was not found between the groups, there was a trend toward more restriction in twisting activity in group S (P = .096). We found significant correlation between the twisting activity and instability questionnaire of the Lysholm score (Spearman coefficient, 0.737; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS: Double-bundle ACL reconstruction using quadriceps tendon-bone autografts provide less laxity (1.79 mm) than single-bundle ACL reconstruction (2.64 mm) as measured by the KT-2000. However, we could not find any significant differences in the functional measurements between the 2 groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app