Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2025
Author Spotlight: Double Posteromedial Approach for Treating Posterior Cruciate Ligament Cysts
Published on: October 20, 2023
Double-Bundle Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Improves Anteromedial Rotatory Instability
Wouter Beel1, Thiago Vivacqua1, Ryan Willing2,3
1Fowler Kennedy Sports Medicine Clinic, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Background:
New techniques have been proposed to better address anteromedial rotatory instability in a medial collateral ligament (MCL)-injured knee that require an extra graft and more surgical implants, which might not be feasible in every clinical setting.
Purpose:
To investigate if improved resistance to anteromedial rotatory instability can be achieved by using a single-graft, double-bundle (DB) MCL reconstruction with a proximal fixation more anteriorly on the tibia, in comparison with the gold standard single-bundle (SB) MCL reconstruction.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees were tested using a 6 degrees of freedom robotic simulator in intact knee, superficial MCL/deep MCL-deficient, and reconstruction states. Three different reconstructions were tested: DB MCL no proximal tibial fixation and DB and SB MCL reconstruction with proximal tibial fixation. Knee kinematics were recorded at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion for the following measurements: 8 N·m of valgus rotation (VR), 5 N·m of external tibial rotation, 5 N·m of internal tibial rotation, combined 89 N of anterior tibial translation and 5 N·m of external rotation for anteromedial rotation (AMR) and anteromedial translation (AMT). The differences between each state for every measurement were analyzed with VR and AMR/AMT as primary outcomes.
Results:
Cutting the superficial MCL/deep MCL increased VR and AMR/AMT in all knee positions except at 90° for VR (P < .05). All reconstructions restored VR to the intact state except at 90° of knee flexion (P < .05). The DB MCL no proximal tibial fixation reconstruction could not restore intact AMR/AMT kinematics in any knee position (P < .05). Adding an anterior-based proximal tibial fixation restored intact AMR/AMT kinematics at ≥30° of knee flexion except at 90° for AMT (P < .05). The SB MCL reconstruction could not restore intact AMR/AMT kinematics at 0° and 90° of knee flexion (P < .05).
Conclusion:
In this in vitro cadaveric study, a DB MCL reconstruction with anteriorly placed proximal tibial fixation was able to control AMR and AMT better than the gold standard SB MCL reconstruction.
Clinical Relevance:
In patients with anteromedial rotatory instability and valgus instability, a DB MCL reconstruction may be superior to the SB MCL reconstruction, without causing extra surgical morbidity or additional costs.
