These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Biomechanical comparison of anatomic double-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and nonanatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.
    Author: Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA.
    Journal: Am J Sports Med; 2011 Feb; 39(2):279-88. PubMed ID: 21239692.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Although both anatomic double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures are in use, it remains controversial whether the anatomic double-bundle procedure is biomechanically superior. HYPOTHESIS: The anatomic double-bundle procedure would be better than both laterally placed anatomic and nonanatomic transtibial single-bundle procedures at restoring to normal the tibial anterior translation, internal rotation, and pivot-shift instability. It was also hypothesized that tibial internal rotation would be closer to normal after laterally placed anatomic single-bundle reconstruction than after the nonanatomic reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight cadaveric knees were mounted in a 6 degrees of freedom rig and tested using the following loading conditions: 90-N anterior and posterior tibial forces, 5-N·m internal and external tibial rotation torques, and a simulated pivot-shift test. Tibiofemoral kinematics during the flexion-extension cycle were recorded with an optical tracking system for (1) intact, (2) anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee, (3) anatomic double-bundle reconstruction, (4) nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction, and (5) laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction. RESULTS: Rotational laxity with internal tibial torque and anterior laxity in the simulated pivot shift were significantly less in the double-bundle reconstruction and laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction compared with the nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction. There were no significant differences between the 3 procedures when anterior and posterior tibial translation forces and external rotation torques were applied. In addition, there were no significant differences between the double-bundle reconstruction and laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The postoperative rotational and pivot-shift laxity after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was significantly better than that after nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction. However, there were no significant differences between the double-bundle reconstruction and laterally placed single-bundle reconstruction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This work suggests that a single-bundle reconstruction may be better able to control both knee laxity and pivot-shift instability if the femoral tunnel is moved to a more lateral position and that then the double-bundle reconstruction may not offer significant further advantages.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]