Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1/2012

01-01-2012 | Knee

Anatomic double-bundle and over-the-top single-bundle with additional extra-articular tenodesis: an in vivo quantitative assessment of knee laxity in two different ACL reconstructions

Authors: S. Zaffagnini, C. Signorelli, N. Lopomo, T. Bonanzinga, G. M. Marcheggiani Muccioli, S. Bignozzi, A. Visani, M. Marcacci

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Combinations of intra- and extra-articular procedures have been proposed for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the aim of achieving an optimal control of translational and rotational knee laxities. Recently, the need for better reproducing the structural and functional behavior of the native anterior cruciate ligament led to the definition of anatomic double-bundle surgical approach. This study aimed to quantitatively verify whether the in vivo static and dynamic behavior obtained using over-the-top single-bundle with extra-articular tenodesis reconstruction was comparable to the results achieved by anatomic double-bundle approach.

Methods

Thirty-five consecutive patients, with an isolated anterior cruciate ligament injury, were included in the study. Standard clinical laxities and pivot-shift test were quantified before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by means of a surgical navigation system dedicated to kinematic assessment; displacements of medial and lateral compartment during stress tests were also analyzed.

Results

Single-bundle with extra-articular tenodesis approach presented statistically better laxity reduction in varus/valgus stress test at full extension and in internal/external rotation at 90° of flexion; lateral plasty controlled better the lateral compartment during drawer test and varus/valgus stress test both at 0° and 30° of flexion and both the compartments during internal/external rotation at 90° of flexion. On the other hand, pivot-shift phenomenon was better controlled by anatomic double-bundle reconstruction.

Conclusions

Both the reconstructions worked similarly for static knee laxity. The extra-articular procedure played an important role in better constraining the displacement of lateral tibial compartment, whereas the anatomic double-bundle reconstruction better restored the dynamic behavior of knee joint highlighted under pivot-shift stress test.

Study design

Case series.
Literature
1.
American Society of Mechanical Engineer (2006) Test uncertainty. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.1–2005—Part I
2.
Bignozzi S, Zaffagnini S, Lopomo N et al (2009) Does a lateral plasty control coupled translation during antero-posterior stress in single-bundle ACL reconstruction? An in vivo study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:65–70PubMedCrossRef
3.
Boyer J, Meislin RJ (2010) Double-bundle versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Bull NYU Hosp Joint Dis 68:119–126
4.
Brophy RH, Pearle AD (2009) Single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of conventional, central, and horizontal single-bundle virtual graft positions. Am J Sports Med 37:1317–1323PubMedCrossRef
5.
Colombet PD, Robinson JR (2008) Computer-assisted, anatomic, double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 24:1152–1160PubMedCrossRef
6.
Crawford C, Nyland J, Landes S et al (2007) Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction: a literature review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:946–964PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ferretti A, Monaco E, Labianca L et al (2009) Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comprehensive kinematic study using navigation. Am J Sports Med 37:1548–1553PubMedCrossRef
8.
Jakob RP, Stäubli HU, Deland JT (1987) Grading the pivot shift. Objective tests with implications for treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69:294–299PubMed
9.
Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK et al (2004) Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 32:629–634PubMedCrossRef
10.
Kuroda R, Hoshino Y, Nagamune K et al (2008) Intraoperative measurement of pivot shift by electromagnetic sensors. Oper Tech Orthop 18:190–195CrossRef
11.
Lopomo N, Bignozzi S, Martelli S et al (2009) Reliability of a navigation system for intra-operative evaluation of antero-posterior knee joint laxity. Comput Biol Med 39:280–285PubMedCrossRef
12.
Lopomo N, Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S et al (2010) Pivot-shift test: analysis and quantification of knee laxity parameters using a navigation system. J Orthop Res 28:164–169PubMed
13.
Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F et al (1998) Arthroscopic intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with gracilis and semitendinosus tendons. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6:68–75PubMedCrossRef
14.
Marcacci M, Molgora AP, Zaffagnini S et al (2003) Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings. Arthroscopy 19:540–546PubMedCrossRef
15.
Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Giordano G et al (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction associated with extra-articular tenodesis: a prospective clinical and radiographic evaluation with 10–13 year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 37:707–714PubMedCrossRef
16.
Markolf KL, Park S, Jackson SR, McAllister DR (2008) Simulated pivot-shift testing with single and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(8):1681–1689PubMedCrossRef
17.
Martelli S, Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S et al (2007) KIN-Nav navigation system for kinematic assessment in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: features, use, and perspectives. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221:725–737PubMed
18.
Martelli S, Lopomo N, Bignozzi S et al (2007) Validation of a new protocol for navigated intraoperative assessment of knee kinematics. Comput Biol Med 37:872–878PubMedCrossRef
19.
Monaco E, Labianca L, Conteduca F et al (2007) Double bundle or single bundle plus extraarticular tenodesis in ACL reconstruction? A CAOS study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1168–1174PubMedCrossRef
20.
Park SJ, Jung YB, Jung HJ et al (2010) Outcome of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a preliminary 2 year prospective study. Arthroscopy 26(5):630–636PubMedCrossRef
21.
Sastre S, Popescu D, Núñez M et al (2010) Double-bundle versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the horizontal femoral position: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(1):32–36PubMedCrossRef
22.
Sbihi A, Franceschi JP, Christel P et al (2004) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: biomechanical comparison on cadaver specimens using a single or double hamstring technique. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 90:643–650PubMed
23.
Schreiber VM, Van Eck CF, Fu FH (2010) Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc 18:27–32PubMedCrossRef
24.
Shen W, Jordan S, Fu F (2007) Review article: anatomic double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 15:216–221
25.
Song EK, Oh LS, Gill TJ et al (2009) Prospective comparative study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the double-bundle and single-bundle techniques. Am J Sports Med 37:1705–1711PubMedCrossRef
26.
Tashman S, Kopf S, Fu FH (2008) The kinematic basis of ACL reconstruction. Oper Tech Sports Med 16:116–118PubMedCrossRef
27.
Vairo GL, McBrier NM, Miller SJ et al (2010) Premature knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction dependent on autograft. J Sport Rehabil 19:86–97PubMed
28.
Yamamoto Y, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E et al (2008) Single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results using navigation: the japanese experience. Oper Tech Orthop 18:173–180CrossRef
29.
Yoo YS, Jeong WS, Shetty NS et al (2010) Changes in ACL length at different knee flexion angles: an in vivo biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(3):292–297PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zaffagnini S, Klos TV, Bignozzi S (2010) Computer-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based approach of the first 15 years. Arthroscopy 26:546–554PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Anatomic double-bundle and over-the-top single-bundle with additional extra-articular tenodesis: an in vivo quantitative assessment of knee laxity in two different ACL reconstructions
Authors
S. Zaffagnini
C. Signorelli
N. Lopomo
T. Bonanzinga
G. M. Marcheggiani Muccioli
S. Bignozzi
A. Visani
M. Marcacci
Publication date
01-01-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1589-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1/2012 Go to the issue

Knee

Surgery for anterior cruciate ligament deficiency: a historical perspective

Knee

The anterolateral ligament of the human knee: an anatomic and histologic study

Editorial

Rainer Siebold: Associate Editor

Knee

Repair of osteochondral lesions in the knee by chondrocyte implantation using the MACI® technique

Knee

Use of transtibial aimer via the accessory anteromedial portal to identify the center of the ACL footprint

Knee

Age as a predictor of residual muscle weakness after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction