Dataset Information

Anatomic single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction both restore dynamic knee function: a randomized clinical trial-part II: knee kinematics.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Compare side-to-side differences for knee kinematics between anatomic single-bundle (SB) and anatomic double-bundle (DB) ACLR during downhill running at 6 and 24 months post ACLR using high-accuracy dynamic stereo X-ray imaging. It was hypothesized that anatomic DB ACLR would better restore tibio-femoral kinematics compared to SB ACLR, based on comparison to the contralateral, uninjured knee.

Methods

Active individuals between 14 and 50 years of age that presented within 12 months of injury were eligible to participate. Individuals with prior injury or surgery of either knee, greater than a grade 1 concomitant knee ligament injury, or ACL insertion sites less than 14 mm or greater than 18 mm were excluded. Subjects were randomized to undergo SB or DB ACLR with a 10 mm-wide quadriceps tendon autograft harvested with a patellar bone block and were followed for 24 months. Dynamic knee function was assessed during treadmill downhill running using a dynamic stereo X-ray tracking system at 6 and 24 months after surgery. Three-dimensional tibio-femoral kinematics were calculated and compared between limbs (ACLR and uninjured contralateral) at each time point.

Results

Fifty-seven subjects were randomized (29 DB) and 2-year follow-up was attained from 51 (89.5%). No significant differences were found between SB and DB anatomic ACLR for any of the primary kinematic variables.

Conclusions

Contrary to the study hypothesis, double-bundle reconstruction did not show superior kinematic outcomes compared to the single-bundle ACLR. While neither procedure fully restored normal knee kinematics, both anatomic reconstructions were similarly effective for restoring near-normal dynamic knee function. The findings of this study indicate both SB and DB techniques can be used for patients with average size ACL insertion sites.

Level of evidence

Level I.

SUBMITTER: Tashman S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298343 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs our understanding of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy has evolved, surgical techniques to better replicate the native anatomy have been developed. It has been proposed that the introduction of a rectangular socket ACL reconstruction to replace a ribbon-shaped ACL has the potential to improve knee kinematics after ACL reconstruction.PurposeTo compare a rectangular femoral tunnel (RFT) with a cylindrical femoral tunnel (CFT) in terms of replicating native ACL strain and knee kinematics in a time-zero biomechanical anatomic ACL reconstruction model using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) graft.Study designControlled laboratory study.MethodsIn total, 16 fresh-frozen, human cadaveric knees were tested in a 5 degrees of freedom, computed tomography-compatible joint motion simulator. Knees were tested with the ACL intact before randomization to RFT or CFT ACL reconstruction using a BTB graft. An anterior translation load and an internal rotation moment were each applied at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion. A simulated pivot shift was performed at 0° and 30° of knee flexion. Ligament strain and knee kinematics were assessed using computed tomography facilitated by insertion of zirconium dioxide beads placed within the substance of the native ACL and BTB grafts.ResultsFor the ACL-intact state, there were no differences between groups in terms of ACL strain or knee kinematics. After ACL reconstruction, there were no differences in ACL graft strain when comparing the RFT and CFT groups. At 60° of knee flexion with anterior translation load, there was significantly reduced strain in the reconstructed state ([mean ±standard deviation] CFT native, 2.82 ± 3.54 vs CFT reconstructed, 0.95 ± 2.69; RFT native, 2.77 ± 1.71 vs RFT reconstructed, 1.40 ± 1.76) independent of the femoral tunnel type. In terms of knee kinematics, there were no differences when comparing the RFT and CFT groups. Both reconstructive techniques were mostly effective in restoring native knee kinematics and ligament strain patterns as compared with the native ACL.ConclusionIn the time-zero biomechanical environment, similar graft strains and knee kinematics were achieved using RFT and CFT BTB ACL reconstructions. Both techniques appeared to be equally effective in restoring kinematics associated with the native ACL state.Clinical relevanceThese data suggest that in terms of knee kinematics and graft strain, there is no benefit in performing the more technically challenging RFT as compared with a CFT BTB ACL reconstruction.