ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2021
Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique has advantages in chondroprotection and knee laxity control compared with single-bundle technique : A long-term follow-up with a minimum of 12 years.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03984474 (Institute of Sports Medicine of Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Institute of Sports Medicine of Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading at fifteen year follow-up compared to single-bundle reconstruction.International orthopaedics · 2024Trial
- Single-bundle vs. double-bundle isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study on time to work and functional outcomes.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Transphyseal ACL reconstruction and tenodesis in skeletally immature patients demonstrates encouraging clinical scores, without growth disturbance, excessive laxity or re-injury.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients aged 60 years and older.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2024Article
- Superior results of return to sport after double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young active patients.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- Four-Tunnel Double-Bundle Anatomical Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Without Remnant Preservation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the long-term clinical outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (SBR) and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DBR) in patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, presenting no meniscus injury and no obvious preoperative cartilage degeneration.
methodsOne hundred and three patients (38.6 ± 9.5 years) with a median follow-up of 151.6 months (range, 144-189 months) completed the retrospective study (SBR group: n = 51; DBR group: n = 52). Clinical outcomes were evaluated with physical examinations, KT-2000 anterior and posterior stability measurement with the knee in 30º of flexion, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Tegner score, Lysholm score; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (3.0 T) was performed, and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) cartilage degeneration grades were determined. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with cartilage degeneration.
resultsThere were significant differences in the pre- and postoperative IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores between the SBR and DBR groups. The SBR group had over double the rate of positive pressure/rub patellar test results (SBR vs DBR, 43.1% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.011). The KT-2000, pivot-shift and Lachman test results were stratified and analyzed, and significant differences between the SBR and DBR groups were found (p < 0.05, respectively). The distribution of ICRS grades differed significantly between the groups at the last follow-up (p = 0.013). A multivariate analysis found that age and operation procedures were significant predictors of 0 and non-0 ICRS grades (odds ratio, 6.077 [95% CI 2.117-17.447] and 0.210 [95% CI 0.068-0.654], respectively) (p < 0.05).
conclusionBoth SBR and DBR achieved overall good long-term results. DBR had advantages in objective outcome measures and was superior in preventing the occurrence of cartilage degeneration. Age was identified as a preoperative risk factor for significant postoperative cartilage degeneration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03984474.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.