2017 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster #1061
Comparison of ACL Reconstruction Between Double Bundle Reconstruction, Selective Bundle Reconstruction and Single Bundle Reconstruction
Zi-Yang Chia, Singapore SINGAPORE
Paul Chee Cheng Chang, MBBS,FRCS, Singapore SINGAPORE
Denny T. T. Lie, MBBS, FRCS, FAMS, Singapore SINGAPORE
Kah-Weng Lai, FRCSEd(Ortho), Singapore, Singapore SINGAPORE
Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak, MBBS, FRCSEd (Ortho), FRCSGlasg (Tr & Orth), FAMS, Singapore SINGAPORE
Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore, SINGAPORE
FDA Status Cleared
Summary
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, selective bundle ACL reconstruction, and single bundle ACL reconstruction.
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Objectives
Although it is a more biological approach to restoring anatomy of torn ACLs, the Selective Bundle ACL reconstruction (Sl-ACLR) has not been shown to be superior in comparison to other methods of ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (Db-ACLR), Sl-ACLR, and single bundle ACL reconstruction (Sb-ACLR).
Methods
& Methods
This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected registry data. We recruited patients who underwent ACL reconstruction between 2012 and 2014 by the senior authors of this study. 147 patients underwent Db-ACLR, 68 patients underwent Sl-ACLR and 76 patients underwent Sb-ACLR. They were followed up for a minimum of 2 years post-surgery. Tegner Activity, Lysholm and IKDC scores, range of movement, ligament grade, side to side anterior posterior laxity as well as pivot shift were assessed. Satisfaction scores were also collected.
Results
Demographic details across all 3 groups were similar with no significant differences. At 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, we found no significant differences in the Tegner scores, Lysholm scores, overall IKDC grade, side to side anterior posterior laxity, pivot shift and patient satisfaction scores across the 3 groups. However at 1 year postoperatively, the Db-ACLR and Sl-ACLR groups showed greater improvement in ligament grade as compared to the Sb-ACLR group with a p-value of 0.034.
Conclusion
While there were no major significant differences in the functional outcomes between the 3 groups, our study shows that Sl-ACLR is not inferior to the more popular methods of Db- and Sb-ACLR. Sl-ACLR, with the preservation of any remnant ACL, offers equivalent clinical outcomes with a greater improvement in ligament grade as compared to Sb-ACLR at 1 year postoperatively. We conclude that Sl-ACLR is a clinically relevant option in patients with remnant ACL and altered hamstring anatomy.