title: Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Arthroscopic reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture is a common orthopaedic procedure. One area of controversy is whether the method of double-bundle reconstruction, which represents the 'more anatomical' approach, gives improved outcomes compared with the more traditional single-bundle reconstruction.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effects of double-bundle versus single-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to February 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to February week 3 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 8). We also searched trial registers, conference proceedings, and contacted authors where necessary.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture in adults.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently selected articles, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seventeen trials were included. These involved 1433 people, mostly young physically active adults. All included trials had methodological weaknesses and were at risk of bias, notably selection bias from inadequate or lack of allocation concealment. Data for pooling individual outcomes were available for a maximum of nine trials and 54% of participants.There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction in the subjective functional knee scores (subjective IKDC score, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score) in the intermediate (six months up to two years since surgery) or long term (two to five years from surgery). For example, the long term results for the Lysholm score (0 to 100: best score) were: mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.50 to 1.75; 5 trials, 263 participants). The only trial reporting on long term knee pain found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in adverse effects and complications (e.g. infection reported by nine trials (7/285 versus 7/393; risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.81); graft failure reported by six trials (1/169 versus 4/185; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.90).Limited data from five trials found a better return to pre-injury level of activity after double-bundle reconstruction (147/162 versus 208/255; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25). At long term follow-up, there were statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for IKDC knee examination (normal or nearly normal categories: 325/344 versus 386/429; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08; 9 trials), knee stability measured with KT-1000 arthrometer (MD -0.74 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.37; 5 trials, 363 participants) and rotational knee stability tested by the pivot-shift test (normal or nearly normal categories: 293/298 versus 382/415; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 9 trials). There were also statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for newly occurring meniscal injury (9/240 versus 24/358; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92; 6 trials) and traumatic ACL rupture (1/120 versus 8/149; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.96; 3 trials). There were no statistically significant differences found between the two groups in range of motion (flexion and extension) deficits.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults, although there is limited evidence that double-bundle ACL reconstruction has some superior results in objective measurements of knee stability and protection against repeat ACL rupture or a new meniscal injury. High quality, large and appropriately reported randomised controlled trials of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults appear justified.
authors.affiliation: Division of Orthopaedics, Khon Kaen Hospital, Khon Kaen, Thailand. thawatchai_tie@yahoo.com.
authors.forename: Thavatchai
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Tiamklang
authors.forename: Sermsak
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sumanont
authors.forename: Thanit
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Foocharoen
authors.forename: Malinee
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Laopaiboon
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D016118:Anterior Cruciate Ligament / Q000601:surgery; D000070598:Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; D059549:Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000209:etiology; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012421:Rupture / Q000601:surgery