Clinical Evaluation of Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedure Using Hamstring Tendon Grafts: Comparisons Among 3 Different Procedures

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with that of nonanatomic single- and double-bundle reconstructions. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective comparative cohort study. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with unilateral ACL-deficient knees were randomly divided into 3 groups. Concerning all background factors, there were no statistical differences among the 3 groups. In group S (n = 24), single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed. In group N-AD (n = 24), nonanatomic double-bundle reconstruction was carried out. In group AD (n = 24), anatomic double-bundle reconstruction was performed. One surgeon performed all operations using hamstring tendon autografts. Each patient underwent clinical examinations, before surgery and at 2 years. RESULTS: No intraoperative and postoperative complications were experienced in each group. There were no significant differences concerning the time for operation among the 3 groups. The statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the postoperative side-to-side anterior laxity among the 3 groups (P = .006). The laxity was significantly less (P = .002) in group AD (1.1 mm) than in group S (2.8 mm), while there was no significant difference (P = .072) between groups AD and N-AD. Concerning the pivot-shift test, group AD was significantly superior to group S (P = .025). There were no significant differences in the range of knee motion, the muscle torque, and the International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the KT-2000 measurement, the side-to-side anterior laxity of our anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction was significantly better than that of the single-bundle reconstruction with the hamstring tendon graft, although there were no significant differences in the other clinical measures among any of the 3 procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.