前交叉韧带单束重建和双束解剖重建短期临床疗效的病例对照研究

目的:比较关节镜下采用单束重建和双束重建前交叉韧带的临床效果。方法:自2009年1月至2010年5月,45例前交叉韧带撕裂患者分别行前交叉韧带解剖双束重建(双束重建组)和自体腘绳肌腱前交叉韧带单束重建(单束重建组)。双束组22例,男15例,女7例;年龄(27.04±3.68)岁;运动损伤3例,交通损伤19例。单束组18例,男13例,女5例;年龄(28.16±4.76)岁;运动损伤2例,交通损伤16例。按照IKDC、Lysholm膝关节评分标准及Lachman试验、轴移试验及KT-1000评估疗效。结果:双束重建组22例、单束重建组18例均获随访,时间12个月。单束重建组IKDC评分从术前(41.40±6.30)分提高至(95.70±3.10)分;Lysholm评分从(47.20±6.30)分提高至(94.20±2.40)分,双束重建组IKDC评分从术前(40.90±6.10)分提高至(96.10±3.40)分,Lysholm膝关节评分从术前(48.10±6.50)分提高至(95.10±2.49)分,两组差异无统计学意义。两组患者中均有1例Lachman试验I度阳性,1例轴移试验阳性。双束重建组KT-1000值(1.5±1.2)mm,单束重建组KT-1000值(1.9±1.5)mm,两组差异无统计学意义。结论:关节镜下采用单束重建和双束重建前交叉韧带临床疗效无明显差异。     

正向、反向束间构型在前十字韧带双束重建中的临床效果比较

 目的比较关节镜下前十字韧带(anterior cruciate ligament. ACL)双束重建中正向、反向束间构型的初期临床效果。方法 2008年 4月至 2009年 8月.采用 8股自体腘绳肌肌腱双束重建 ACL治疗单纯 ACL损伤患者 97例.根据患者入: 时住: 号的奇偶数随机分成正向组(采用正向束间构型. 47例)和反向组(采用反向束间构型.50例).移植物均采用微型钢板纽扣进行悬吊式固定。术后患者随访期均超过 1年.根据 IKDC、Lysholm和 Tegner评分标准进行膝关节功能评估。结果术后随访 12~17个月.平均(13.71±1.32)个月。末次随访时.正向组 2例(4.2%)患者伸膝活动受限 10°.5例(10.6%)膝关节轻度屈曲受限(均<15°);反向组所有患者伸膝活动正常.4例(8.0%)屈曲受限约 5°。根据 Lachman试验.正向组 1例(2.1%)I度阳性和 1例(2.1%) II 度阳性.反向组 1例(2.0%) II 度阳性。 KT-1000(屈膝 30°.30N)双膝松弛度差异值正向组为(1.04±1.11) mm.反向组为(0.86±1.12) mm。按照 IKDC客观评级标准.正向组 46例(97.9%)正常或接近正常.反向组 48例(96.0%)正常或接近正常。根据 IKDC、 Lysholm和 Tegner评分标准.两组的差异均无统计学意义。结论采用 8股自体腘绳肌肌腱正向、反向束间构型双束重建 ACL均能有效地恢复膝关节稳定性.两组短期临床效果的差异无统计学意义。但反向束间构型能有效地防止移植物和髁间凹的撞击。     

关节镜下胭绳肌腱部分重建、单束重建和双束重建前交叉韧带的疗效比较

目的 研究使用腘绳肌腱进行关节镜下前交叉韧带（ACL）损伤后部分重建、单束重建和双束重建的疗效差异。方法 本研究共包括56例ACL重建病例，其中部分重建11例，单束重建25例，双束重建20例。所有患者术前及随访时均进行IKDC2000、Tegner和Lysholm评分以及常规KT-2000和后推KT-2000测量，并对结果进行统计学分析。结果 平均随访19．84±5．03个月（13～22个月）。对三组的IKDC、Lysholm和Tegner评分的配对t检验显示，术后的IKDC、Lysholm和Tegner评分比术前均有显著改善。后推法KT-2000测量显示，ACL双束重建可以比单束重建获得更好的膝关节稳定性，ACL部分重建组膝关节的稳定性优于单束重建和双束重建组。但常规KT-2000测量无法辨别三种术式之间膝关节稳定性的差异。结论 ACL双束重建可以比单束重建更好地重建膝关节的稳定性，ACL部分重建的临床效果优于单束重建和双束重建；后推KT-2000测量在ACL双束重建和部分重建的术后稳定性评估上可能具有重要的应用价值。     

自体腘绳肌腱单束与双束重建前交叉韧带临床结果的Meta分析

目的 基于已发表的随机对照试验（randomized controlled trials, RCTs）,对关节镜下采用自体腘绳肌腱单束或双束重建前交叉韧带的整体疗效比较进行Meta分析。方法 计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane library、Springerlink数据库,收集自体腘绳肌键单束对比双束重建前交叉韧带的RCTs,检索时间及语种不限。两名研究人员按照指定的纳入标准及排除标准独立对文献进行筛选,提取有关数据资料,并采用Cochrane Collaboration工具表对文献质量进行评价。采用Revman 5.3软件进行Meta分析,比较两种重建方式术后国际膝关节评分委员会（International Knee Documentation Committee, IKDC）主观评分和客观评分、Lachman试验、轴移试验、Lysholm膝关节评分、Tegner膝关节评分、KT-1000或KT-2000关节活动度测量仪测量的数值,评价手术疗效。结果 纳入19篇RCTs,共1 190例研究对象,其中单束重建组580例,双束重建组610例。两组间在IKDC主观评分[MD=-0.90,95% CI（-3.07,1.27）,P=0.42]、IKDC客观评分[RR=0.98,95% CI（0.94,1.02）,P=0.38]、Lachman试验结果[RR=0.81,95% CI（0.63,1.05）,P=0.11]、Lysholm膝关节评分[MD=0.40,95% CI（-1.24,2.05）,P=0.63]、Tegner膝关节评分[MD=-0.08,95% CI（-0.47,0.33）,P=0.74]、KT-1000或KT-2000测量值[MD=0.30,95% CI（-0.05,0.64）,P=0.09]方面,差异均无统计学意义。轴移试验结果在两组间的差异具有统计学意义[RR=0.85,95% CI（0.74,0.97）,P=0.02]。结论 对于膝关节功能恢复和前直向稳定性,用自体腘绳肌腱单束或双束重建前交叉韧带的临床结果无明显差异;而对于恢复膝关节旋转稳定性,双束重建技术优于单束重建。     

关节镜下单束重建治疗前交叉韧带部分断裂的临床研究

目的探讨关节镜下单束重建治疗前叉韧带部分断裂的临床疗效及手术方法。方法回顾性分析2007年6月至2009年10月关节镜下应用单束重建治疗前叉韧带部分断裂12例患者的资料。12例患者中,男9例,女3例,平均年龄37岁。根据IKDC、Lysholm膝关节功能评分进行功能恢复评估。结果 12例患者平均随访13个月,所有患者术后均无感染。术后最后一次随访时Lachman试验（﹢）、前抽屉实验（-）2例,其他患者前抽屉试验、Lachman试验均为阴性。11例膝关节屈伸活动度正常,1例膝关节伸直缺失10°,IKDC评级：11例正常,1例接近正常。术前IKDC主观评分（48.33±12.77）,Lysholm膝关节功能评分（55.42±15.01）;术后末次随访IKDC主观评分（91.42±4.94）,Lysholm膝关节功能评分（95.33±6.02）,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论关节镜下单束单隧道重建治疗前叉韧带部分断裂的短期临床疗效满意,保留残存纤维束重建虽然有一定难度,但手术在熟练的关节镜技术下可以顺利施行。     

关节镜下自体4股腘绳肌腱双束与单束重建前交叉韧带后膝关节稳定性及功能评分的meta分析

[目的]评价关节镜下自体4股腘肌腱双束与单束重建前交叉韧带的临床效果.[方法]计算机检索CENTRAL、PubMed、Embase、CBM等数据库,获取自体4股腘绳肌腱移植双束与单束重建前交叉韧带的随机对照试验,根据Cochrane协作网推荐的随机对照试验偏倚评估工具对纳入研究的方法学进行评估,并使用RevMan5.0对数据进行Meta分析.[结果]共纳入10篇文献,693例前交叉韧带损伤患者纳入Meta分析,结果显示:双束重建组术后KT2000或KT1000测量值与单束重建组的差异有统计学意义(SMD=-0.27,95% CI(-0.53,-0.01),P=0.04);轴移试验阴性(RR=1.35,95% CI(1.16,1.56),P<0.000 1)、弱阳性(RR=0.37,95% CI(0.18,0.74),P=0.005)、阳性(RR =0.17,95% CI (0.06,0.66),P=0.01)的差异均有统计学意义.功能评分中IKDC主观评分(SMD=0.03,95% CI(-0.21,0.28),P=0.79)和Lysholm评分(SMD=-0.25,95% CI(-0.53,0.02),P=0.07)均无统计学意义.[结论]自体4股腘绳肌腱双束重建前交叉韧带在恢复膝关节的前直向稳定性和旋转稳定性方面优于单束重建;但功能评分相似.     

三明治式后十字韧带重建的临床疗效

目的 评估后十字韧带三明治式重建,即保留残存纤维,采用八股腘绳肌腱双束重建后十字韧带的效果.方法 2005年1月至2005年6月,单纯陈旧性后十字韧带损伤患者18例,男14例,女4例;年龄19～42岁,平均34岁.在关节镜下采用自体腘绳肌腱行双束四隧道重建,其中采用四股半腱肌腱重建前外侧束,四股股薄肌腱重建后内侧束.残存纤维保留于重建的双柬移植物之间.通过微型钢板和纽扣悬吊式固定移植物.根据IKDC、Lysholm和Tegner评分标准进行评估.结果 患者均获得2年以上随访,末次随访时发现,17例患者(94.4%)后抽屉试验阴性,1例后抽屉试验1度阳性.KT-1000检查示,双膝后向松弛度差值从术前的(9.3±1.4)mm改善为术后的(0.7±0.9)mm,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).根据IKDC评估标准,16例患者(88.9%)评级正常,2例患者(11.1%)评级接近正常.IKDC主观评分从(64.1±3.3)分增加到(95.6+3.1)分(P＜0.01).Lysholm评分从(58.6+4.4)分增加到(94.9±3.6)分(R＜0.01).Tegner评分,术前为5.6分,末次随访时为6.9分.结论 关节镜下后十字韧带三明治式重建能使88.9%的患者在术后2年得到正常的IKDC评级,11.1%的患者得到接近正常的IKDC评级.     

关节镜下单、双束同种异体肌腱重建前交叉韧带的疗效比较

目的比较研究关节镜下单、双束同种异体肌腱重建前交叉韧带(anterior cruciate ligament,ACL)的临床疗效。方法将2008年1月-2009年1月符合选择标准的105例ACL损伤患者,根据重建方法不同随机分为单束重建组(n=59)及双束重建组(n=46),移植物均采用同种异体深低温冻存肌腱。于术后6、12、24个月进行随访,共93例患者完成随访,其中单束重建组51例,双束重建组42例。两组患者性别、年龄、身高、体重、病程、合并伤等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性;两组患者术前国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分以及Lysholm评分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),前抽屉试验、Lachman试验均为阳性(+),轴移试验均为Ⅱ度阳性(++)。结果两组患者术后切口均为Ⅰ期愈合,无骨折、感染、下肢深静脉血栓形成等并发症发生。术后6、12个月,两组IKDC评分及Lysholm评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后12个月,两组Lachman试验、前抽屉试验及轴移试验结果比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后24个月,除前抽屉试验外,双束重建组IKDC评分、Lysholm评分、轴移试验和Lach-man试验以及KT-1000检测双膝前后位移差值均优于单束重建组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论双束同种异体深低温冻存肌腱重建ACL的临床效果优于单束重建。     

前交叉韧带部分损伤关节镜下保留健束的单束增强重建

目的介绍关节镜下保留健束的单束重建增强治疗前交叉韧带(ACL)部分损伤方法,评估其临床效果。方法对16例单纯ACL部分损伤患者在关节镜下采用自体半腱肌腱进行保留健束的单束加强解剖重建,按照IKDC评分和Lysholm膝关节功能评分表对患膝功能进行评估。结果 16例均获得随访,未发生切口感染、前叉韧带断裂等;术后无活动受限,屈膝活动度125~148°(135±1.9)°,IKDC评分从术前的(72.4±2.1)分提高到随访结束时的(94.8±3.1)分(t=7.36,P<0.01)。患者术前Lysholm膝关节功能评分为(78.3±2.5)分,终末随访时为(97.2±3.1)分(t=6.431,P<0.01)。结论在保留健束的基础上有效地重建断裂部分的ACL,能够恢复双束韧带的完整统一,更有益于良好地恢复关节功能,疗效满意。     

关节镜下双束及单束单隧道重建膝前交叉韧带的疗效比较

【摘要】 目的 探讨关节镜下前交叉韧带(ACL)损伤后双束及单束单隧道重建的近期临床疗效差异。 方法 我科自2008年1月至2011年6月对38例ACL损伤患者进行关节镜下韧带重建,其中双束单隧道重建21例(A组),传统单束单隧道重建17例(B组)。所有患者术前及随访时均进行IKDC2000、Larson和Lysholm评分比较手术前后膝关节功能,并对结果进行统计学分析。 结果 38例患者(38个膝关节)获得随访,随访时间12~36个月,平均25个月。关节活动度均正常,A组手术前后的Lysholm评分,Larson评分及IKDC评分均有统计学差异,B组手术前后的3种评分同样有统计学差异;A、B两组比较,除了术后Larson评分双束组优于单束组(P<0.05)外,其余均无统计学意义。结论 关节镜下ACL胫骨端双束单隧道重建与传统单束重建,均能取得较为满意近期临床疗效,双束组可能优于单束组,但有待进一步证实。     

自体腘绳肌腱单、双束重建前交叉韧带临床比较研究

目的 比较自体腘绳肌腱单、双束重建前交叉韧带的临床效果.方法 2005年5月至12月采用双束重建前交叉韧带患者33例(双束组),单束重建患者41例(单束组),均采用自体半腱肌腱和股薄肌腱.双束组4例失访,随访时间14～22个月,平均18个月;单束组8例失访,随访时间14-21个月,平均18个月.采用国际膝关节评分委员会评分标准(IKDC),Lysholm和Tegner评分、KT-2000及Biodex肌力测试评价.结果 双束组IKDC,Lysholm和Tegner评分分别由术前的60、66、4分显著上升至术后的85、94、6分.KT-2000在134 N下30°和90°位移情况由术前的5.8和2.4 mm减少为术后1.2和1.1 mm(P＜0.01).双束组伤侧膝关节伸膝及屈膝的峰力矩在60°/s下,相对于正常侧分别为81%和87%,120°/s下为76%和85%.各项值均显著低于对侧(P＜0.01).尽管在30°位KT-2000测量值和伸膝肌力的恢复方面,双束重建较单束重建表现出了更好的趋势,但功能评分,KT测量值和BIODEX测量的结果,单、双束组差异无统计学意义.结论 自体胭绳肌腱单、双束重建前交叉韧带均可以恢复膝关节稳定,改善关节功能,双束重建患者在30°位前后稳定性和伸膝肌力方面表现出了较单束重建更好的趋势.     

Comparing the anatomic single-bundle versus the anatomic double-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective,randomized, single blind,clinical study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the early results of anatomic single bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a prospective randomized study of anatomic single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the hamstring tendons of 67 patients with unilateral ACL deficiency. The subjects were randomized into two groups. The single-bundle group consisted of 37 patients and the double-bundle group 30 patients. We used the following evaluations: clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometry, Tegner knee score, modified Cincinnati score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Two surgeons performed all operations, and a blinded independent author conducted the clinical follow-up assessments.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 25.8 months. The differences between the preoperative and postoperative clinical examinations and the KT-1000 measurements were statistically different in both groups (p?p?Conclusions This prospective study found no difference between the outcomes of the anatomic single-bundle and the anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstructions. Level of evidence II.     

单束与双束解剖重建前交叉韧带临床疗效的荟萃分析

目的 通过荟萃分析评价单束与双束重建前交叉韧带在恢复膝关节前直向、旋转稳定性及膝关节功能评分方面的临床疗效,为前交叉韧带重建方法的选择提供依据.方法 计算机检索Ovid Medline和Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库关于单束和双束解剖重建前交叉韧带的临床随机对照研究.阅读评价文献质量并提取有效数据,采用RevMan 5.0.23软件进行统计分析,两种手术方法的KT测量值、Lysholm评分采用加权均数差评价,轴移试验及国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)分级评分采用优势比评价.结果 共纳入前瞻性临床随机对照研究8篇.荟萃分析结果显示两种重建交叉韧带方法KT测量值差异具有统计学意义,加权均数差值-0.35 mm[95%CI(-0.61～0.08),P=0.01],但差异不具有临床意义;轴移试验合并优势比1.64[95%CI(0.85～3.16),P=0.14];IKDC分级评分优势比1.80[95%CI(0.98～3.31),P=0.06);Lysholm评分加权均数差值-1.91[95%CI(-3.45～0.37),P=0.01],差异有统计学意义.结论 双束解剖重建前交叉韧带的近期临床疗效不优于单束重建.     

关节镜下个体化前交叉韧带单束与双束解剖重建的近期疗效比较

目的 探讨关节镜下个体化单束与双束解剖重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的技术,并比较二者的近期疗效.方法回顾性分析2007年3月到2009年9月行ACL个体化单、双束解剖重建且获得随访的117例ACL损伤患者资料,根据不同解剖重建方法分为两组:A组(个体化单束解剖重建)35例,男31例,女4例;平均年龄(28.6±5.1)岁.B组(个体化双束解剖重建)82例,男73例,女9例;平均年龄(27.6±5.4)岁.两组患者术前一般资料比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性.采用Lachman试验、轴移试验、KT-2000、国际膝关节评分委员会(IKDC)评分及Lysholm评分比较两组患者的疗效.结果 117例患者术后获11～25个月(平均15个月)随访.末次随访时Lachman试验结果:与健侧比较,A组完全正常者占88.6%(31/35),B组占95.1%(78/82);轴移试验结果:与健侧比较,A组完全正常者占88.6%(31/35),B组占96.3%(79/82);Lysholm评分:A组平均为(93.4±8.2)分,B组平均为(93.7±7.0)分,以上指标两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).而KT-2000检测结果:A组平均为(1.4±0.6)mm,B组平均为(1.1±0.5)mm;A组IKDC评分正常者(A级)占71.4%(25/35),B组占93.9%(77/82),两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论采用个体化解剖位双束重建能更好地恢复患者膝关节的稳定性.双束解剖重建术中ACL股骨与胫骨足迹、髁间窝宽度的判断对手术的设计至关重要,3入路技术、测量尺的应用是个体化ACL双束解剖重建的关键所在.

Abstract：

Objective To compare clinical outcomes of double-bundle and single-bundle in individualized arthroscopic anatomical reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) . Methods The clinical data of 117 patients were reviewed who had received double-bundle or single-bundle arthroscopic ACL reconstruction from March 2007 through September 2009 in our hospital and had undergone complete follow-up. Of them, 35 cases had single-bundle ACL reconstruction and 82 double-bundle reconstruction. In the single-bundle group(group A), there were 31 men and 4 women, aged 28. 6 ±5. 1 years. In the double-bundle group(group B), there were 73 men and 9 women, aged 27. 6 ±5. 4 years. The 2 groups were comparable in the preoperative demographic data ( P > 0. 05). To evaluate the outcomes, Lachman and Pivot Shift exams , KT-2000, Lysholm and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) scores, were adopted. Results The 117 patients received a mean follow-up of 15 months (from 11 to 25 months). The Lachman test showed 88. 6% (31/35) were normal in group A and 95. 1% (78/82) were normal in group B.The pivot-shift test showed 88. 6%(31/35) were normal in group A and 96. 3% (79/82) were normal in group B. Group A had a mean Lysholm score of 93. 4 ± 8. 2 and group B a mean Lysholm score of 93. 7 ±7. 0. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the above indexes ( P > 0. 05). By IKDC score, 71. 4% (25/135) were normal in group A and 93. 9% (77/82) were normal in group B. The KT-2000 test showed a mean of 1. 4 ± 0. 6 mm in group A and a mean of 1. 1 ± 0. 5 mm in group B. These 2 values were significantly different between the 2 groups ( P < 0. 05). Conclusions The individualized arthroscopic double-bundle anatomical reconstruction of ACL can maximally restore the anteroposterior and rotational stability. Arrangement of the ACL insertion site on the femoral and tibial side, three-portal technique and ruler application are keys for individualized anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction.     

关节镜下髌韧带和六股异体腘绳肌腱单束重建前交叉韧带的临床研究

目的 比较关节镜下采用髌韧带和六股异体腘绳肌腱单束重建前交叉韧带的临床效果.方法 回顾性分析2006年10月至2009年12月我科采用关节镜下异体移植物单束重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的108例患者的临床资料,其中六股异体腘绳肌腱58例(腘绳肌腱组),异体髌韧带50例(髌韧带组).术后应用Lachman和pivot-shift试验以及KT-1000评估膝关节稳定性,按照国际膝关节评分委员会(IKDC)、Lysholm膝关节评分评价膝关节功能.结果 术后患者随访时间12～38个月,平均为28.6个月.腘绳肌腱组KT-1000检查示双侧膝关节前向松弛度差异为(1.2±1.2)mm,显著小于髌韧带组(1.8±1.5)mm,差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).腘绳肌腱组轴移试验阴性55例(94.8%),阳性3例(5.2%),髌韧带组阴性41例(82.0%),阳性9例(18.0%),差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).术后腘绳肌腱组和髌韧带组IKDC评分为(90±5)分和(89±5)分,Lysholm评分为(94±5)分和(93±6)分,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 关节镜下单束重建前交叉韧带采用六股异体腘绳肌腱较髌韧带能够明显提高膝关节稳定性.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the outcome of arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL)reconstruction with six-strand hamstring tendon and patellar tendon allograft.Methods From October 2006 to December 2009,108 patients with arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed,with 58 patients with six-strand hamstring tendon(Group H),and 50 patients with patellar tendon allograft(Group P).Patients were available for clinical evaluation with KT-1000 arthrometer measurements,Lachman and pivot-shift test,and knee function with the Internationa]Knee Documentation Committee(IKDC),Lysholm scores.Results All the patients were followed up at an average of 28.6 months(range 12-38 months).The average side-to-side difference was lesser for group H(1.2 ± 1.2)mm than group P(1.8 ±1.5)mm(P＜0.05).On the pivot-shift test,55(94.8%)patients were negative and 3(5.2%)were positive in group H,whereas 41(82.0%)were negative and 9(18.0%)were positive in group P,with significant difference between two groups(P＜0.05).All knee function scores were improved postoperatively,without statistically significant difference between the two groups(P＞0.05).Conclusion Arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction with six-strand hamstring tendon will achieve better knee stability than patellar tendon allograft.     

A prospective randomised study of anatomical single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: quantitative evaluation using an electromagnetic measurement system

We conducted a prospective randomised study of anatomical single-bundle (A-SB group) versus double-bundle (A-DB group) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the hamstrings tendons. Twenty patients with unilateral ACL deficiency were randomised into two groups. We created the bone tunnels at the position of the original insertion of the anteromedial bundle footprint and posterolateral bundle footprint in the A-DB group and at the central position between these two bundles in the A-SB group. All of the patients were tested before ACL reconstruction and one year after surgery. The KT-1000 measurements, isokinetic muscle peak torque and heel-height difference were evaluated and the general knee condition was assessed by Lysholm score. For pre- and postoperative stability assessment, we used the six-degrees-of-freedom of knee kinematic measurement system using an electromagnetic device (the EMS) for quantitative assessment during the Lachman test and the pivot shift test. There were no significant differences in the KT-1000 measurements, isokinetic muscle peak torque, heel-height difference, and Lysholm score at one-year follow-up between these two groups. The EMS data showed there were significant differences in the acceleration of the pivot shift test between the operated knee and the contralateral normal knees in the A-SB group. In conclusion, clinical outcomes were equally good in both groups. However, the EMS data showed the anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction tended to be biomechanically superior to the single-bundle reconstruction.     

Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Purpose

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which arthroscopic single-bundle was compared with double-bundle for ACL reconstruction. The search strategy followed the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. The outcomes of these studies were analysed in terms of graft failures, Lysholm score, negative pivot-shift test, KT1000 arthrometer measurements, knee extensor and flexor peak torques, knee extension and flexion deficit, and subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) final score. Methodological quality was assessed and data were extracted independently. Standard mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated by a fixed effects or random effects model. Heterogeneity across the studies was assessed with the I-square and chi-square statistic. Forest plots were also generated.

Results

We identified 17 RCTs comprising 1,381 patients who were treated by arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The results of meta-analysis of these studies showed that arthroscopic double-bundle reconstruction was associated with a lower risk of graft failures (P = 0.002) and a lower rate of positive pivot-shift test (P < 0.0001). Compared with single-bundle reconstruction, double-bundle reconstruction had a lower KT1000 arthrometer measurement (P < 0.00001), a lower knee extension deficit (P = 0.006) and a higher subjective IKDC score (P = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between single-bundle and double-bundle reconstruction in Lysholm score (P = 0.91), knee extensor peak torques (P = 0.97), knee flexor peak torques (P = 0.96), knee flexion deficit (P = 0.30) and objective IKDC score (P = 0.18).

Conclusions

Considering the more favourable outcomes of graft failures, knee joint stability and knee joint function in double-bundle reconstruction, we concluded that arthroscopic double-bundle reconstruction should be considered as the primary treatment in ACL reconstruction.     

保留并牵张残留纤维的前十字韧带双束重建术

目的 评估在亚急性期进行保留并牵张残留纤维的前十字韧带双束重建的临床效果.方法 2006年1月至2006年6月,对56例前十字韧带损伤患者在亚急性期进行保留并牵张残留纤维的前十字韧带双束重建.前十字韧带双束重建采用四隧道八股肌腱移植的方法.使用PDS缝线穿缝胫骨侧残留纤维,经深束股骨隧道牵张固定.使用IKDC及Lysholm评分标准评估疗效.结果 53例随访2年以上.末次随访时所有患者Lachman试验均为阴性.屈膝25°KT-1000检测结果显示双侧膝关节松弛度差值为(-0.44±1.53)mm,与术前(8.01±1.83)mm比较差异有统计学意义(t=37.03,P=0.0001).29例(54.7%)双侧膝关节松弛度差值小于0mm,提示患膝相对于健侧更为稳定或紧张.24例(45.3%)双侧膝关节松弛度差值为0～2mm.所有患者轴移试验均阴性.48例膝关节活动度正常,2例有5°屈曲受限,1例有小于5°屈曲受限,2例有5°过伸受限.根据IKDC评估标准,51例(96.2%)正常,2例(3.8%)接近正常.IKDC主观评分为(95.6±3.1)分,Lysholm评分为(94.8±2.9)分.受伤前Tegner评分平均为7.3分,末次随访时为7.1分.结论 根据2年以上随访结果,以IKDC为评估标准,保留并牵张残留纤维的前十字韧带双束重建能够使96.2%的患者恢复正常,3.8%的患者接近正常.     

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a clinical comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone single bundle versus semitendinosus and gracilis double bundle technique

The study hypothesis was that the outcome of semitendinosus gracilis double bundle (STG-DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is advantageous in terms of clinical results and restoration of anterior-posterior and rotational laxity in comparison to bone-patellar tendon-bone single-bundle (PTB-SB) ACL reconstruction. We analysed 41 PTB-SB and 51 STG-DB patients using the Tegner, IKDC and WOMAC scores preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of two years. At follow-up, there was no significant difference in the clinical scores. The KT 1000 side-to-side measurement showed no significant difference between groups. The STG-DB group was significantly superior in terms of the pivot-shift sign and anterior knee pain. We conclude that the outcome of STG-DB reconstruction in the mid-term was not advantageous in terms of clinical scores and anterior-posterior laxity evaluated by the KT 1000. Nevertheless, the restored rotational laxity measured by the pivot shift test was significantly superior in the STG-DB technique.