• 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 Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.56 no.3
• /
• pp.253-260
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The least constrained prosthesis is generally recommended in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Nevertheless, a varus/valgus constrained (VVC) prosthesis should be implanted when a semi-constrained prosthesis is not good for adequate stability, especially in the coronal plane. In domestic situations, however, the VVC prosthesis could not always be prepared for every primary TKA case. Therefore, it is sometimes impractical to use a VVC prosthesis for unsual unstable situations. This study provides information for preparing VVC prostheses in the preoperative planning of primary TKA through an analysis of primary VVC TKA cases. Materials and Methods: This study reviewed 1,797 primary TKAs, performed between May 2003 and February 2016. The reasons for requiring VVC prosthesis and the preoperative conditions in 29 TKAs that underwent primary TKA with a VVC prosthesis were analyzed retrospectively. Results: In primary TKA, 29 cases (1.6%) in 27 patients (6 male and 21 female) used VVC prosthesis. Two patients underwent a VVC prosthesis on both knees. The mean age of the patients was 63.4 years old (34-79 years). The mean flexion contracture was 16.2° (-20°-90°), and the mean angle of great flexion was 111.7° (35°-145°). The situations requiring a VVC prosthesis were severe valgus deformity in 10 knees, knee stiffness requiring extensive soft tissue release in 10 knees, previously injured collateral ligaments in five knees, and distal femoral bone defect due to avascular necrosis in four knees. The mean tibiofemoral angle was 25.7° (21°-43°) in 10 cases with a valgus deformity. The mean flexion contracture was 37.5° (20°-90°), and the mean range of motion was 48.5° (10°-70°) in 10 cases with knee stiffness. Conclusion: The preparation of VVC prosthesis is recommended, even for primary TKA in cases of severe valgus deformity (tibiofemoral angle>20°), stiff knee (the range of motion: less than 70° with more than 20° flexion contracture), and the cases with a previous collateral ligament injury. This information will help in the preparation of adequate TKA prostheses for unusual unstable situations.