This Study Compares The Early Results Of Two Different Techniques Of ACL Reconstruction Conventional Single Bundle And Anatomic Double Bundle

Purpose: Complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture can leadm torecurrent knee instability, meniscal tears, and articular cartilage degeneration. The ACLdoes not heal when torn,and surgical reconstruction is the standardtreatment.6,12Reconstruction aims at restoring the kinematics and stabilityof the injuredknee to prevent future degenerative changes.22Reconstruction of the ACL has become acommonly performed procedure, and good to excellent results have been reported.Three different techniques of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)reconstruction—conventional (transtibial) single bundle(CSB), anatomic single bundle(ASB), and anatomic double bundle (ADB)—have been described.However, a criticalreview of the literature reveals that the success rates vary between69%and95%.6,7,13,45,48Conventional reconstruction techniques are mostly successful inlimiting anterior tibial translation but may be insufficient in controlling combinedrotatory loads of internal and valgus torque.8,30In addition, a significant portion ofpatients with ACL reconstruction will not return to their previous level of sportingactivity.8,10-12,14,46This suggests that there remains considerable room forimprovement in ACL reconstruction. This study compares the early results of twodifferent techniques of ACL reconstruction: conventional single bundle and anatomicdouble bundle.Methods: We performed a retrospective study of all patients with anterior cruciateligament (ACL) rupture treated between2011-02and2012-02. Inclusion criteria werean ACL rupture in active patients with a closed growth1plate. Exclusion criteria weremultiligamentous injuries, severe arthritic changes (grade3or greater), total or subtotalmeniscectomy, contralateralACL-deficient knee, and patients with partialACL rupture.The average follow-up was8months (range,6-10months). At the final follow-up,60patients were available：twenty-five patients were in the ADB group and thirty-five patients were in the ASB group. The outcomes were evaluated using the Lysholm scoreand subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form. All patientscompleted the questionnaires necessary to calculate the IKDC subjective score andLysholm score.Results: The IKDC score in the ADB group：eighteen patients in A grade,fivepatients in B grade and two patients in C grade.In the ASB group: twenty-six patientsin A grade,five patients in B grade and four patients in C grade.The difference was notsignificant（P>0.05）.Conclusion：In our pristine follow-up study, double-bundle reconstruction andsingle bundle reconstruction can yield similar results. Knee stability and OA rates weresimilar in two groups. Our study has some limitations. The first limitation is that we haddifferent numbers of patients in the groups. Also, they had a small number of patients (n=60).And the follow-up time was short. Our intention is to continue the follow-up toreveal the truly long-term results of these methods in treating an ACL rupture.