Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparative study with propensity...

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic Surgery
• Sports Medicine
• Biomedical Engineering

Background:

• Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques, including double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB), are widely studied.
• DB ACL reconstruction is often favored for improved rotational stability, but evidence comparing it to SB reconstruction remains inconclusive.
• Existing research lacks sufficient data to definitively establish the superiority of anatomical DB ACL reconstruction over anatomical SB reconstruction.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare clinical and functional outcomes between SB and DB ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at a 2-year follow-up.
• To evaluate the efficacy of anatomical DB ACLR in comparison to anatomical SB ACLR.
• To provide evidence-based insights into the choice between SB and DB ACLR techniques.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective review of medical records for patients undergoing ACLR with at least 2 years of follow-up.
• Matched comparison of 48 patients in each group (SB and DB) using propensity scores based on age, sex, and Tegner activity score.
• Assessment of Lysholm score, IKDC subjective knee score, Tegner activity score, functional performance tests, isokinetic muscle strength, KT-2000 arthrometer, and pivot shift tests.

Main Results:

• No significant differences were observed between SB and DB groups in Lysholm scores (P=0.224), IKDC subjective knee scores (P=0.524), or Tegner activity scores (P=0.059) at 2-year follow-up.
• All functional performance tests, isokinetic muscle strength tests (at 60° and 180°/s), KT-2000 arthrometer tests, and pivot shift tests showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

• The study found no significant differences in clinical or functional outcomes between single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction at the 2-year follow-up mark.
• These findings suggest that both SB and DB ACLR techniques yield comparable results in terms of knee function and patient-reported outcomes.
• Further research may be warranted to explore long-term outcomes or specific patient subgroups where one technique might offer advantages.