Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare subjective, objective and radiographic outcome of the lateralized single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft with a non-anatomical double-bundle hamstring tendons autograft anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique at long-term follow-up. METHODS: Seventy-nine non-consecutive randomized patients (42 men; 37 women) with unilateral ACL insufficiency were prospectively evaluated, before and after ACL reconstruction by means of the above-mentioned techniques, with a minimum follow-up of 8 years (range 8-10 years; mean 8.6 years). In the double-bundle hamstrings technique, we used one tibial and one femoral tunnel combined with one "over-the-top" passage, cortical staple's fixation and we left intact hamstrings' tibial insertion. Patients were evaluated subjectively and objectively, using IKDC score, Tegner level, manual maximum displacement test with KT-2000™ arthrometer. Radiographic evaluation was performed according to IKDC grading system, and re-intervention rate for meniscal lesions was also recorded. RESULTS: The subjective and objective IKDC were similar in both groups while double-bundle hamstrings group showed significantly higher Tegner level (P = 0.0007), higher passive range of motion recovery (P = 0.0014), faster sport resumption (P = 0.0052), lower glide pivot-shift phenomenon (P = 0.0302) and lower re-intervention rate (P = 0.0116) compared with patellar tendon group. Radiographic evaluation showed significant lower objective degenerative changes in double-bundle hamstrings group at final follow-up (P = 0.0056). CONCLUSION: Although both techniques provide satisfactory results, double-bundle ACL reconstruction shows better functional results, with a faster return to sport activity, a lower re-operation rate and lower degenerative knee changes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaffagnini et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: