Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Not Superior to Anatomic Single-Bundle Reconstruction at 10-Year Follow-up: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Background:

The anatomic double-bundle (DB) technique is purported to be a superior technique due to its mimicking of the double-stranded anatomic formation of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Previous studies with 2-, 5- and 10-year follow-up are conflicted as to whether this technique is superior to the previous gold standard method of ACL reconstruction, the anatomic single-bundle (SB) reconstruction.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcomes of the anatomic DB technique and anatomic SB technique with independent drilling at 10 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We hypothesized that DB ACL reconstruction would result in a better outcome in terms of the pivot-shift test.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

A total of 105 patients (33 women, 72 men; median age, 27 years [range, 18-52 years]) were randomized and underwent ACL reconstruction (DB group: n = 53; SB group: n = 52). All reconstruction procedures were performed anatomically by identifying the ACL footprint, using the anteromedial portal for femoral tunnel drilling, and utilizing interference screws for tibial and femoral fixation. One blinded observer examined the patients both preoperatively and at follow-up (median, 120 months [range, 112-134 months]). Multiple subjective and objective clinical evaluations were used to assess the outcomes. Radiographic assessments of osteoarthritis were performed using the Ahlbäck, Kellgren-Lawrence, and Fairbank classification systems early postoperatively and at the final follow-up.

Results:

Preoperatively, no differences were found between the study groups. Overall, 70 patients (67%; DB group: n = 39; SB group: n = 31) were available for analysis at 10-year follow-up. No significant difference could be shown between the groups in terms of the pivot-shift grade, knee laxity measurements using the KT-1000 arthrometer, manual Lachman grade, single-leg hop test result, range of motion measurements, Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) score. Correspondingly, no differences were found between the groups regarding the presence of radiographic osteoarthritis at follow-up. Both groups improved at follow-up compared with preoperatively in terms of the pivot-shift grade, knee laxity measurements using the KT-1000 arthrometer, manual Lachman grade, Lysholm knee score, and KOOS score (P < .05 [highest P value for any comparison]).

Conclusion:

The anatomic DB technique was not superior to the anatomic SB technique with independent drilling at 10-year follow-up in regard to objective and subjective measurements. As such, one could argue that there is no need for the continued use of the anatomic DB technique in an unselected population.