Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 19, 2026
Novel Triple-Loop Technique for Suturing TFCC Injuries without Transosseous Tunnel
Published on: May 23, 2025
ACL double-bundle reconstruction with one tibial tunnel provides equal stability compared to two tibial tunnels
Björn Holger Drews1, Andreas Martin Seitz2, Jochen Huth3
1Department for Orthopedic Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Center of Surgery, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany. b.drews@me.com.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) double-bundle reconstruction with one tibial tunnel displays the same in vitro stability as a conventional double-bundle reconstruction with two tibial tunnels when using the same tensioning protocol.
Methods:
In 11 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees, ACL double-bundle reconstruction with one and two tibial tunnels was performed. The two grafts were tightened using 80 N in different flexion angles (anteromedial-bundle at 60° and posterolateral-bundle at 15°). Anterior tibial translation (134 N) and translation with combined rotatory and valgus loads (10 Nm valgus stress and 4 Nm internal tibial torque) were determined at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° flexion. Measurements were taken in intact ACL, resected ACL, three-tunnel reconstruction and four-tunnel reconstruction. Additionally, the tension on the grafts was determined. Student's t test was performed for statistical analysis of the related samples. Significance was set at p < 0.017 according to Bonferroni correction.
Results:
The two reconstructive techniques displayed no significant differences in comparison with the intact ACL in anterior tibial translation at 0°, 60° and 90° of flexion. The same results were obtained for the anterior tibial translation with a combined rotatory load at 60° and 90°. When directly comparing both reconstructive techniques, there were no significant differences for the anterior tibial translation and combined rotatory load at all flexion angles. The measured tension on grafts displayed similar load sharing between both bundles. Except at full extension, both grafts displayed a significantly different tension increase under anterior tibial translation for both techniques (p = 0.0086).
Conclusions:
Tightening both bundles in ACL double-bundle reconstruction with one or two tibial tunnels in different flexion angles achieved comparable restoration of stability, although there was different load sharing on the bundles. With regard to individualized ACL reconstruction, the double-bundle technique with one tibial tunnel offers a possibility to address small tibial insertion sites without compromising the advantages of a double-bundle procedure.
