We have located links that may give you full text access.
Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparative study with propensity score matching.
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 2016 September
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have elucidated the functional anatomy and biomechanics of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), as a result, double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction has received much attention and has become a popular choice because it gives better rotational stability. Many other studies, however, found no differences with respect to stability, and/or other clinical outcomes between the DB and single-bundle (SB) techniques. There is still not enough evidence as to whether the anatomical DB anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is superior to anatomical SB reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to compare various clinical and functional outcomes between SB and DBACLR at 2 years followup.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with ACLR available for at least 2 years followup were reviewed retrospectively. 191 patients (164 males and 25 females) for SB and 48 patients (40 males and 8 females) for DB were selected using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean age of SB and DB was 29.9 and 24.8 years, respectively. Propensity score (PS) was calculated based on age, sex and Tegner activity score and 48 patients in each group were matched by the PS. Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee score and Tegneractivity score were investigated. Functional performance tests, isokinetic muscle strength test with Biodex system, pivot shift test and KT-2000 arthrometer test were performed.
RESULTS: At 2 years followup, there were no significant differences between SB and DB group in Lysholm score (92.9 vs. 90.6, P = 0.224), IKDC subjective knee score (88.7 vs. 87.0, P = 0.524), Tegner activity score (7.3 vs. 8.0, P = 0.059). No significant differences were also found in all functional performance tests, isokinetic muscle strength tests in 60° and 180°/s, KT-2000 arthrometer test and pivot shift test (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences of clinical and functional outcomes between SB and DB ACLR at 2 years followup.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with ACLR available for at least 2 years followup were reviewed retrospectively. 191 patients (164 males and 25 females) for SB and 48 patients (40 males and 8 females) for DB were selected using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean age of SB and DB was 29.9 and 24.8 years, respectively. Propensity score (PS) was calculated based on age, sex and Tegner activity score and 48 patients in each group were matched by the PS. Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee score and Tegneractivity score were investigated. Functional performance tests, isokinetic muscle strength test with Biodex system, pivot shift test and KT-2000 arthrometer test were performed.
RESULTS: At 2 years followup, there were no significant differences between SB and DB group in Lysholm score (92.9 vs. 90.6, P = 0.224), IKDC subjective knee score (88.7 vs. 87.0, P = 0.524), Tegner activity score (7.3 vs. 8.0, P = 0.059). No significant differences were also found in all functional performance tests, isokinetic muscle strength tests in 60° and 180°/s, KT-2000 arthrometer test and pivot shift test (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences of clinical and functional outcomes between SB and DB ACLR at 2 years followup.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app