Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 32 (9), 1887-904

Systemic Review of Anatomic Single- Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Does Femoral Tunnel Drilling Technique Matter?

Affiliations
Review

Systemic Review of Anatomic Single- Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Does Femoral Tunnel Drilling Technique Matter?

Yang Zhang et al. Arthroscopy.

Abstract

Purpose: To provide an up-to-date assessment of the difference between anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (DB-ACLR) and anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction (SB-ACLR). We hypothesized that anatomic SB-ACLR using independent femoral drilling technique would be able to achieve kinematic stability as with anatomic DB-ACLR.

Methods: A comprehensive Internet search was performed to identify all therapeutic trials of anatomic DB-ACLR versus anatomic SB-ACLR. Only clinical studies of Level I and II evidence were included. The comparative outcomes were instrument-measured anterior laxity, Lachman test, pivot shift, clinical outcomes including objective/subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and complication rates of extension/flexion deficits, graft failure, and early osteoarthritis. Subgroup analyses were performed for femoral tunnel drilling techniques including independent drilling and transtibial (TT) drilling.

Results: Twenty-two clinical trials of 2,261 anatomically ACL-reconstructed patients were included in the meta-analysis. Via TT drilling technique, anatomic DB-ACLR led to improved instrument-measured anterior laxity with a standard mean difference (SMD) of -0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.81 to -0.02), less rotational instability measured by pivot shift (SMD = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.24 to 6.16), and higher objective IKDC score with odds ratio (OR) of 2.28 (95% CI = 1.19 to 4.36). Via independent drilling technique, anatomic DB-ACLR yielded better pivot shift (SMD = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.36 to 3.05). Anatomic DB-ACLR also revealed statistical significance in subjective IKDC score compared with anatomic SB-ACLR (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.49).

Conclusions: Anatomic DB-ACLR showed better anterior and rotational stability and higher objective IKDC score than anatomic SB-ACLR via TT drilling technique. Via independent drilling technique, however, anatomic DB-ACLR only showed superiority of rotational stability. All clinical function outcomes except subjective IKDC score were not significantly different between anatomic DB-ACLR and SB-ACLR.

Level of evidence: Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 9 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback