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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Review

Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up

Authors: Haitao Chen, Biao Chen, Kai Tie, Zhengdao Fu, Liaobin Chen

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes.

Methods

This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome.

Results

Five RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group.

Conclusion

The DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up.
Literature
1.
Zhang Y, Xu C, Dong S, Shen P, Su W, Zhao J. Systemic review of anatomic single-versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: does femoral tunnel drilling technique matter? Arthroscopy. 2016;32(9):1887–904.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Jiang H, Ma G, Li Q, Hu Y, Li J, Tang X. Cortical button versus cross-pin femoral fixation for hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2017:363546517717672.
3.
Tie K, Chen L, Hu D, Wang H. The difference in clinical outcome of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with and without remnant preservation: a meta-analysis. Knee. 2016;23(4):566–74.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Desai N, Alentorn-Geli E, van Eck CF, Musahl V, Fu FH, Karlsson J, et al. A systematic review of single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(3):862–72.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ahldén M, Sernert N, Karlsson J, Kartus J. A prospective randomized study comparing double- and single-bundle techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2484–91.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Devgan A, Rohilla R, Singh A, Tanwar M, Devgan R, Siwach K. A prospective study to evaluate the clinico-radiological outcomes of arthroscopic single bundle versus double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2016;7(Suppl 2):236–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Arciero RA. Double-bundle and single-bundle ACL reconstruction techniques did not differ in terms of clinical outcomes at 2 or 5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(22):1933–4.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hussein M, van Eck CF, Cretnik A, Dinevski D, Fu FH. Prospective randomized clinical evaluation of conventional single-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 281 cases with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(3):512–20.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zantop T, Herbort M, Raschke MJ, Fu FH, Petersen W. The role of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament in anterior tibial translation and internal rotation. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):223–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Komzák M, Hart R, Feranec M, Šmíd P, Kocová R. In vivo knee rotational stability 2 years after double-bundle and anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;44(1):105–11.
11.
Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA. Biomechanical comparisons of knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2 clinically available transtibial procedures: anatomic double bundle versus single bundle. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(7):1349–58.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Seon JK, Gadikota HR, Wu JL, Sutton K, Gill TJ, Li G. Comparison of single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions in restoration of knee kinematics and anterior cruciate ligament forces. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(7):1359–67.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Tsai AG, Wijdicks CA, Walsh MP, Laprade RF. Comparative kinematic evaluation of all-inside single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):263–72.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Morimoto Y, Ferretti M, Ekdahl M, Smolinski P, Fu FH. Tibiofemoral joint contact area and pressure after single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(1):62–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic double-bundle, anatomic single-bundle and non-anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery. 2011;27(10):e75–e6.CrossRef
16.
Lorbach O, Kieb M, Domnick C, Herbort M, Weyers I, Raschke M, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of knee kinematics after anatomic single- and anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstructions with medial meniscal repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(9):2734–41.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Siebold R, Dehler C, Ellert T. Prospective randomized comparison of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):137–45.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Morey VM, Nag HL, Chowdhury B, Sankineani SR, Naranje SM. A prospective comparative study of clinical and functional outcomes between anatomic double bundle and single bundle hamstring grafts for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int J Surg. 2015;21:162–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Lee S, Kim H, Jang J, Seong SC, Lee MC. Comparison of anterior and rotatory laxity using navigation between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction: prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(4):752–61.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Araki D, Kuroda R, Kubo S, Fujita N, Tei K, Nishimoto K, et al. A prospective randomised study of anatomical single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: quantitative evaluation using an electromagnetic measurement system. Int Orthop. 2011;35(3):439–46.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Bjornsson H, Desai N, Musahl V, Alentorn-Geli E, Bhandari M, Fu F, et al. Is double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to single-bundle? A comprehensive systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(3):696–739.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zhang Z, Gu B, Zhu W, Zhu L. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(4):559–65.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Li YL, Ning GZ, Wu Q, Wu QL, Li Y, Hao Y, et al. Single-bundle or double-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Knee. 2014;21(1):28–37.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kang HJ, Wang XJ, Wu CJ, Cao JH, Yu DH, Zheng ZM. Single-bundle modified patellar tendon versus double-bundle tibialis anterior allograft ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(8):2244–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Yang J, Fu S, Song Y. A prospective randomized controlled trial to evaluate clinico-radiological outcome of arthroscopic single bundle versus double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2017;10(1):1087–93.
26.
Koken M, Akan B, Kaya A, Armangil M. Comparing the anatomic single-bundle versus the anatomic double-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, single blind, clinical study. Eur Orthop Traumatol. 2014;5(3):247–52.CrossRef
27.
Sastre S, Popescu D, Núñez M, Pomes J, Tomas X, Peidro L. Double-bundle versus single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the horizontal femoral position: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;18(1):32–6.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Debieux P, Carneiro M, Queiroz AAB, Luzo MVM, Granata GSM Jr, Ferreira FP. Sagittal and rotational knee stability following single- and double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Orthop Traumatol. 2012;3(1):49–54.CrossRef
29.
Kong L, Liu Z, Meng F, Shen Y. Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2017;10(1):1–15.
30.
Li X, Xu CP, Song JQ, Jiang N, Yu B. Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2013;37(2):213–26.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Woo SH, Seo HY, Lee KB. Progression of osteoarthritis after double- and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2340–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Jarvela S, Kiekara T, Suomalainen P, Jarvela T. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study with 10-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(11):2578–85.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Beyaz S, Güler ÜÖ, Demir Ş, Yüksel S, Çınar BM, Özkoç G, et al. Tunnel widening after single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized 8-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(11):1–9.CrossRef
35.
Adravanti P, Dini F, de Girolamo L, Cattani M, Rosa MA. Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized controlled trial with 6-year follow-up. J Knee Surg. 2017;30(9):898–904.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Karikis I, Desai N, Sernert N, Rostgard-Christensen L, Kartus J. Comparison of anatomic double- and single-bundle techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts: a prospective randomized study with 5-year clinical and radiographic follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(5):1225–36.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zaffagnini S, Bruni D, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bonanzinga T, Lopomo N, Bignozzi S, et al. Single-bundle patellar tendon versus non-anatomical double-bundle hamstrings ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized study at 8-year minimum follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(3):390–7.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Hemmerich A, van der Merwe W, Batterham M, Vaughan CL. Knee rotational laxity in a randomized comparison of single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1):48–56.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Fanelli GC, Orcutt DR, Edson CJ. The multiple-ligament injured knee: evaluation, treatment, and results. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(4):471–86.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Tsarouhas A, Iosifidis M, Kotzamitelos D, Spyropoulos G, Tsatalas T, Giakas G. Three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic analysis of knee rotational stability after single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(7):885–93.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Bach BR, Provencher MT. ACL surgery: how to get it right the first time and what to do if it fails. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine. 2010;9(3):689–98.
42.
Sahu A, Konarski A, Johnson DS. Review of literature: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. NeuroRehabilitation. 2008;18(1):69–82.
43.
Tajima G, Iriuchishima T, Ingham SJ, Shen W, van Houten AH, Aerts MM, et al. Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores patellofemoral contact areas and pressures more closely than nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1302–10.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Suomalainen P, Järvelä T, Paakkala A, Kannus P, Järvinen M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study with 5-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(7):1511–8.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Fahey M, Indelicato PA. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament replacement. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22(3):410–4.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
Authors
Haitao Chen
Biao Chen
Kai Tie
Zhengdao Fu
Liaobin Chen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0753-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Incidence and predictors of surgical site infection after ORIF in calcaneus fractures, a retrospective cohort study

Research article

Clinical manifestation and arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic posterior cruciate ligament cyst

Research article

Training with Hybrid Assistive Limb for walking function after total knee arthroplasty

Research article

Percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of very severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with spinal canal compromise

Research article

Are three-dimensional patient-specific cutting guides for open wedge high tibial osteotomy accurate? An in vitro study

Research article

Minimally invasive treatment for anterior pelvic ring injuries with modified pedicle screw-rod fixation: a retrospective study