Open AccessSuperior results of return to sport after double‐bundle versus single‐bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young active patients
Author(s) -
Qin Liang,
You Hongbo,
Qi Jun,
Ren Ye,
Cheng Peng,
Liang Shuang,
Wang Jiang
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.806
H-Index - 125
eISSN - 1433-7347
pISSN - 0942-2056
DOI - 10.1007/s00167-022-07010-6
Subject(s) - medicine , return to sport , lachman test , anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction , anterior cruciate ligament , confidence interval , surgery , physical therapy , rehabilitation
Purpose To compare return to sport and clinical results in young active patients who underwent anatomic single‐bundle (SB) versus double‐bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods Young active patients undergoing SB or DB ACLR from 2017 to 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome measures were the rate and time to return to sports, with secondary measures including the Lachman test, pivot shift test, Lysholm scores, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores and graft rupture. Results The study included a total of 90 patients (DB group, 42; SB group, 48), with a mean follow‐up of 27.1 ± 6.1 months. Young active patients who underwent DB ACLR had a higher rate of return to pivoting sports than those who underwent SB ACLR (HR = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4, 4.1; p = 0.013). The DB group returned to pivoting sports at a mean ± SD of 11.0 ± 2.9 months compared with 12.7 ± 2.7 months in the SB group ( p = 0.01). There was one traumatic failure in the SB group and one contralateral ACL rupture in the DB group. There was no significant difference in the rate and time to return to running, Lachman test, pivot‐shift test, Lysholm or IKDC scores in either group. Conclusion Both anatomical SB and DB techniques achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes. DB techniques led to superior performance of return to pivoting sports but nonsignificant differences in time and rate of return to running, passive stability measurement, subjective knee function outcome and graft rupture rate in both groups at the 2‐year follow‐up. The DB ACLR should be considered a viable option to treat young patients with high activity demands. Level of evidence III.