• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.04a
• /
• pp.11-11
• /
• 2008

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.87-96
• /
• 2009

최근 전방십자인대 손상의 치료에 남아있는 인대 다발이 이식건의 생물학적 치유를 도우며 고유 수용감각(proprioception) 기능을 유지할 뿐만 아니라 슬관절의 전방 전위 억제의 생역학적 기능을 가지는 것으로 연구되고 있다. 이러한 이론을 바탕으로 남아있는 전방십자인대를 보존하는 노력들은 다양하게 시도되고 있다. 전방십자인대 손상의 자연 경과는 아직도 논란이 되고 있으나 선택적인 환자에 있어서 보존적 치료는 비교적 좋은 결과를 얻을 수 있으므로 불필요한 재건술을 줄일 수 있다. 최근 시도되고 있는 선택적 다발 재건술 및 남아있는 다발을 보존하는 전방십자인대 재건 수술 수기들은 다양한 방법으로 시도되고 있으며 남아있는 다발을 보존하는 장점이 있으나 협소한 적응증을 가진다. 저자들의 남아있는 다발을 보존하는 전방십자인대 재건술은 자가 슬괵건을 이용한 단일다발 재건술을 시행하면서 잔존하는 이완된 다발에 봉합사를 통과시킨 후 봉합사를 추가적인 터널 없이 bioabsorbable cross pin (RIGIDfix system, Mitek, Johnson & Johnson, USA) 구멍을 통하여 당기고 고정하는 방법이다. 전방십자인대 재건술시 남아있는 다발을 보존하는 방법은 이식건의 생물학적 치유을 촉진하고 또한 경골 부착부에 남아있는 기계수용체를 보존하므로 기능적 회복에 도움이 될 것으로 기대된다. 저자들의 방법은 비교적 광범위한 적응증을 가지며 적은 합병증으로 남아있는 다발을 효과적으로 보존할 수 있는 술식으로 전방십자인대 수술시 좋은 치료 선택의 하나로 사료된다.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.132-139
• /
• 2011

The concept of double-bundle ACL reconstruction was introduced recently to restore the anatomical and biomechanical functions of the native ACL. According to anatomical and biomechanical studies, the separate reconstruction of anteromedial and posterolateral bundle expect to increase the overall postoperative stability and clinical results compared to single-bundle ACL reconstruction. But there is still a lack of available clinical outcome studies with sufficient follow-up to demonstrate the real advantages of double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence to support double-bundle technique and to address controversies existing over the usefulness of this technique.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.111-114
• /
• 2009

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DBACLR) has been developed to produce better clinical outcomes in traditional single-bundle reconstruction, which showed considerable rate of dissatisfaction in restoration of stability and function of the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. There is plenty of evidence that DBACLR has theoretical advantages in anatomical, biomechanical, biological, kinematical, and possibly clinical standpoint compared with traditional one but still a lack of available clinical outcome studies with sufficient follow-up to demonstrate the substantial advantages of DBACLR. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical outcomes of double-bundle technique and to address controversy exists over the usefulness of this technique.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.13-19
• /
• 2010

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the postoperative knee stability and functional scores between single- and double- bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction at a minimum 2 years follow-up. Materials and Methods: 56 patients (group T) with ACL injury in one knee were recruited with 27 allocated to the double bundle ACL reconstruction group (group D) and 29 to the single bundle ACL reconstruction group (group S). Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, Lachman and pivot shift test results, and radiographic stabilities were also compared between two groups. Results: Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores were similar in the two groups at 2 years follow-up. Furthermore, stability results of Lachman test, pivot shift test, and radiological findings failed to reveal any significant inter-group differences. Conclusion: Double bundle ACL reconstruction does not produce better in clinical outcomes and postoperative stabilities.

• Journal of Korean Orthopaedic Sports Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2013

This article provides an overview of the current concepts regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, including anatomy, biomechanics, operative techniques and clinical results. Many techniques have been introduced for ACL reconstruction: single bundle reconstruction, remnant preserving augmentation, and double bundle reconstruction. Each technique has its strong and weak points, and it is not sure which technique is superior than others. It is considered to suggest that rather than to select the same method of surgery in all patients, select the method of reconstruction depending on the characteristics of the individual patient, the state of the residual ligaments and extent of the damage.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.92-98
• /
• 2007

Purposes: The purpose of this study was to report surgical technique of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL) reconstruction and to compare the short-term clinical results between arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Materials and Methods: From May 2005 to May 2006, ninety-eight patients were underwent ACL reconstruction. We designed prospective study with sixty-one patients who were revealed isolated ACL injury. We serially checked clinical and radiologic data preoperatively and postoperatively. We compared single-bundle with double-bundle ACL reconstruction patients with preoperative datas and postoperatively 1-year data. There were 30 single bundle reconstruction and 31 double bundle reconstruction. Stability was assessed objectively by anterior stress radiographs with the $Telos^{(R)}$ device and the maximal manual test with the KT-2000 arthrometer. The clinical results were assessed by IKDC(International Knee Documentation Committee) and OAK(Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie) scores. Also, we evaluated postoperative thigh circumference and range of motion. All of operations were done by only one surgeon. Results: At single-bundle reconstruction group, preoperative AP instability which was checked by $Telos^{(R)}$ device and the maximal manual test with the KT-2000 arthrometer was $7.9{\pm}3.3$ and $7.4{\pm}2.0$, respectively. At double-bundle reconstruction group, it was $8.3{\pm}3.5$ and $7.9{\pm}3.2$, respectively. Residual AP laxity checked at 1 year after operation was $1.9{\pm}1.2$ and $2.2{\pm}1.6$ in single-bundle reconstruction group, and $1.1{\pm}0.9$ and $1.0{\pm}1.0$ in double-bundle reconstruction group. So, double-bundle reconstruction had better results in both anterior stress radiographs with the $Telos^{(R)}$ device and the maximal manual test with the KT-2000 arthrometer, and there were significant differences in statistics. But, clinical results such as IKDC(International Knee Documentation Committee) scores, OAK(Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie) scores, thigh circumference and range of motion had no significant difference between two groups. Conclusions: On the basis of stability, the side-to-side anterior laxity of double-bundle ACL reconstruction was significantly better than that of single-bundle reconstruction, although there were no significant differences in the other clinical measures among them.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.18-23
• /
• 2013

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of anatomical single bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using outside-in technique by clinical outcome analysis. Materials and Methods: From July 2009 to July 2010, 41 cases of single bundle ACL reconstruction using outside-in technique which were followed minimum 1 year were enrolled. Clinical results were evaluated using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation score, Lysholm score, pivot shift test, one leg hop test, KT-1000 arthrometer test, Telos stress arthrometer test. Results: IKDC subjective knee score and Lysholm score were improved to $86.1{\pm}2.1$ and $91.2{\pm}3.8$ postoperatively (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively). KT-1000 arthrometer test and Telos stress arthrometer test also were improved to $2.2{\pm}0.9\;mm$ and $2.3{\pm}1.2\;mm$ (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively). Pivot shift test and one leg hop test revealed good results. Conclusion: Anatomical single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using outside-in technique showed good clinical results, so it was considered available method.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.125-131
• /
• 2011

Optimal treatment of the torn posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) remains controversial. The type of tibial fixation (transtibial vs inlay), the femoral tunnel position within the femoral footprint (central, eccentric or isometric), and the number of bundles in the reconstruction (single-bundle vs double-bundle) are controversial issues. The PCL has a better chance of spontaneously healing than the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) because of a rich blood supply (near the branch of the middle genicular artery) and coverage with a thicker synovium. In general, for easier passage of the graft and full visualization of the original ligament attachment site during the precise positioning of the tunnel, the remaining PCL fibers are usually debrided during reconstruction. However, the remaining remnant structures would significantly contribute to the posterior stability of the knee joint, the healing of the graft, preserving proprioceptive function of the mechanoreceptors in the PCL. Double bundle PCL reconstruction may result in some surgical complications because of increased complexity of making tunnel. Therefore, single bundle PCL reconstruction with remnant preservation seems to be an effective procedure.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.107-113
• /
• 2010

Purpose: To evaluate the outcome of the two-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with single femoral tunnel and tibialis anterior tendon allograft and to determine any functional advantages. Materials and Methods: From June 2006 to March 2008, we performed single femoral tunnel and two-bundle ACL reconstruction with tibialis anterior tendon allograft in 26 cases. Mean age was 35.5 years. 20 cases were male and 6 cases were female. Average follow-up period was 2 years and 5 months, range from 1 year to 3 years and 5 months. Subjective and objective parameters were utilized in analyses, such as the mean range of motion, Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, Lachman test and IKDC score. Results: Postoperative mean Lysholm knee score, IKDC Evaluation Form, Tegner activity scale, Pivot shift test, and anterior displacement by the Telos stress test demonstrated statistically significant differences compared to the preoperative. Conclusion: Two-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with single femoral tunnel showed good clinical results and was good operative technique.