• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.109-114
• /
• 2005

Recently, the interest on anatomical ACL reconstruction with double bundle technique is increased to reproduce the original load distribution, and kinematics of the knee. We developed an arthroscopic double bundle ACL reconstruction technique using autogenous quadriceps tendon with 2 splitted graft and patellar bone plug. The anteromedial bundle and posteolateral bundle of the ACL is replicated with each splitted graft of quadriceps tendon and fixed with biodegradable interference screw on the 2 femoral tunnels. The patellar bone plug of quadriceps tendon is fixed with biodegradable interference screw within the 1 tibial tunnel. We suggest that our technique using quadriceps tendon may be an alternative in arthroscopic double bundle ACL reconstruction.

• 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.9 no.2
• /
• pp.222-231
• /
• 2005

Purpose: This article describes a double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using a five-strand hamstring tendon autograft with conventional anteromedial bundle reconstruction and additional posterolateral bundle reconstruction. Operative technique: For the tibial tunnel, the conventional single tunnel technique is performed and for the femoral tunnel, the double tunnel technique is performed with the anteromedial and posterolateral bundle. After minimal notchplasty, the anteromedial femoral tunnel is prepared with leaving one milimeter of posterior femoral cortex within the over-the-top, which if positioned at the 11-o'clock orientation for the right knee or at the 1-o'clock position for the left knee. The posterolateral femoral tunnel that is located 5 to 7 mm superior to the inner margin of the lateral meniscus anterior horn at $90^{\circ}$ of flexion is prepared with tile outside-in technique using a 4.5 cannulated reamer. The graft material for the double bundle reconstruction is made of the conventional four-strand hamstring autograft in the anteromedial bundle and of a single-strand semitendinosus tendon in the posterolateral bundle. The anteromedial bundle is fixed with using a rigid fix system on the femoral side and the posterolateral bundle is fixed to tie with the miniplate from the outside femur. Then, with the knee in $10^{\circ}\;to\;20^{\circ}$ of flexion, a bioabsorbable screw is simultaneously applied to achieve tibial fixation with tensioning of both bundles. Conclusion: A double bundle reconstruction with five-strand hamstring autograft, which is designed with a favorable conventional anteromedial bundle and an additional posterolateral bundle to restore rotation stability, seems to be a very effective method for the treatment for ACL instabilities.

• Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.95-104
• /
• 2016

Purpose: To evaluate the knee joint after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with three-dimensional (3D) isotropic magnetic resonance (MR) image, and to directly compare the ACL graft findings on 3D MR with the clinical results. Materials and Methods: From January 2009 to December 2014, we retrospectively reviewed MRIs of 39 patients who had reconstructed ACL with double bundle technique. The subjects were examined using 3D isotropic proton-density sequence and routine two-dimensional (2D) sequence on 3.0T scanner. The MR images were qualitatively evaluated for the intraarticular curvature, graft tear, bony impingement, intraosseous tunnel cyst, and synovitis of anteromedial and posterolateral bundles (AMB, PLB). In addition anterior tibial translation, PCL angle, PCL ratio were quantitatively measured. KT arthrometric values were reviewed for anterior tibial translation as positive or negative. The second look arthroscopy results including tear and laxity were reviewed. Results: Significant correlations were found between an AMB tear on 3D-isotropic proton density MR images and arthroscopic proven AMB tear or laxity (P < 0.05). Also, a significant correlation was observed between increased PCL ratio on 3D isotropic MRI and the arthroscopic findings such as tear, laxities of grafts (P < 0.05). KT arthrometric results were found to be significantly correlated with AMB tears (P < 0.05) and tibial tunnel cysts (P < 0.05). Conclusion: An AMB tear on 3D-isotropic MRI was correlated with arthroscopic results qualitatively and quantitatively. 3D isotropic MRI findings can aid the evaluation of ACL grafts after double bundle reconstruction.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.198-204
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the merits and demerits of double bundle reconstruction and achieve improvements hereafter, by comparing the results of double bundle and single bundle reconstruction using tibialis anterior allograft. Materials and Methods: Twenty seven patients were divided to undergo either double bundle(n=14) or single bundle(n=13) reconstruction with tibialis anterior allograft tendon. The evaluation methods were AP laxity with KT-2000 arthrometer, isokinetic knee strength measurements, pivot-shift test, IKDC subjective score, Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, radiographic evaluations with postoperative MRI, and second look arthroscopy. Results: Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity score were significantly better in double bundle reconstruction. In pivot-shift test, single bundle reconstruction was evaluated as grade 0 in 10 of the knees, grade 1 in 1, and grade 2 in 2. Double bundle reconstruction was evaluated as grade 0 in 13, and grade 2 in 1. In second look arthroscopy, single bundle was evaluated as excellent in 6 of the knees, fair in 7, anteromedial bundle of double bundle reconstruction was excellent in 13 and fair in 1, and posterolateral bundle was excellent in 4, fair in 9, and poor in 1. There were no significant differences in other evaluations. Conclusion: Favorable outcome may be expected with double bundle reconstruction of ACL. However there are still need for improvement in terms of reconstruction technique and rehabilitation protocol to reduce PL bundle injury.

• 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.2 no.1
• /
• pp.25-32
• /
• 1998

The distinction between isolated and combined injuries is crucial both for treatment and prognosis. For most combined injuries, surgical treatment continues to be favored over nonoperative treatment. It is generally agreed that isolatel PCL injuries do well without surgery. There has been an interest by many authors to fix the graft directly to the posterior aspect of the tibia(tibial inlay). With this procedure, tibial graft fixation will be more direct and theoretically reduce the bending effects of the graft with a fixation site far away from the tibial insertion. Modified tibial inlay technique, which is the posterior approach does not require the patient to be in the prone or lateral decubitus position during the operation. Use of a double-bundle reconstructive technique is attractive and has been performed by some surgeons. At this time, this procedure is still being investigated and should not be routinely used in the clinical setting until studies have indicated an advantage over current single-bundle techniques. However theologically, double-bundle reconstructive technique is more useful in severe posterior unstable knee. Recent advances have increased our knowledge of the anatomy and mechanical characteristics of the PCL. Basic science research has further increased our awareness of the interaction of the posterolateral structures with the PCL. To achieve restoration of normal posterior laxity, it is critical to address the posterior as well as the postero-lateral structures. Surgical treatment is often complex and requires a wide range of surgical techniques and skills to treat associated injuries. When the PCL is reconstructed, most surgeons choose to reconstruct the anterolateral component using a graft of sufficient size and strength. The initial postoperative rehabilitation should be addressed cautiously in an effort to avoid excessive forces on delicate repairs and reconstructions in these complex injuries. Further research is necessary to evaluate new surgical approaches such as double-bundle reconstructions and tibial inlay techniques as well as improved techniques for capsular and collateral ligament injuries.

• 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.10 no.2
• /
• pp.203-208
• /
• 2006

Purpose: Previous transtibial double bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction methods have several problems in graft length and tibial fixation. We introduce new surgical method that is less restrictive by graft length and is more stable with single tibial fixation. Operative technique: After diagnostic arthroscopy, we prepare the graft, ream the tibial tunnel and perform the procedure for TransFix tibial fixation. Femoral 2 tunnel is made and graft is passed via anteromedial (AM) portal. Tibial fixation is done and femoral 2 graft is fixed sequentially at each knee position. Conclusion: TtransFix tibial single fixation method in double bundle PCL reconstruction provides more stable fixation, more free graft selection and prevents graft damage by passing the graft via AM portal.