Double and Single Bundle in Athletes: A Comparison in Medium and Long-Term Rates to Return to Sport and Re-Injury

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

Instituto Vita, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Abstract

Objectives: Compare, retrospectively, the medium- and long-term of return to sport rates and re-injury 
of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in patients submitted to single -bundle (SB) compared to doublebundle (DB) technique reconstruction.
Methods: Athletes operated by SB or DB ACL reconstruction, with at least five years of follow-up at a single center, 
were included. The following data were collected: demographic data; competitive sports practice before the injury; 
previous surgery; injury/surgery to the contralateral knee; return to sports and level of the return; re-injury (time of 
the re-injury after the first surgery; mechanism of trauma for the re-injury; necessity of operative treatment); signs 
and complaints related to the knee the last clinical consultation.
Results: Seventy-six athletes (27 SB and 49 DB) were included. The return to sport rate (98%) was the same for 
both groups, and the return to the previous level rate showed an improvement in the DB group but without statistical 
significance (63% vs. 79%; P = 0.173). However, other outcomes showed higher results for the DB group: lower reinjury rate throughout the follow-up period (41% vs. 18%; P = 0.034) and during the first year of follow-up (22% vs. 
4%; P = 0.021), and less stiffness (0% vs. 22%, P = 0.001). While in primary reconstruction cases, there was not a 
higher re-injury rate using SB (P = 0.744), in the revision cases, SB was correlated with more re-injuries than DB (P 
= 0.002).
Conclusion: The overall re-injury in the medium- and long-term and the return to practice sports at the same level 
as before surgery in athletes submitted to DB reconstruction were slightly better than those submitted to SB 
reconstruction, especially in the cases that were asecond time lesion ( revisioned knees).
 Level of evidence: II

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahldén M, Sernert N, Karlsson J, Kartus J. A prospective randomized study comparing double- and single-bundle techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41 :( 11):2484–2491. doi: 10.1177/0363546513497926.
  2. Komzák M, Hart R, Feranec M, Šmíd P, Kocová R. In vivo knee rotational stability 2 years after double-bundle and anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018; 44:105–111. doi: 10.1007/s00068-017-0769-7.
  3. Kondo E, Merican AM, Yasuda K, Amis AA. Biomechanical comparisons of knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2 clinically available transtibial procedures: Anatomic double bundle versus single bundle. Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38(7):1349–1358. doi: 10.1177/0363546510361234.
  4. Björnsson H, Desai N, Musahl V, et al. Is double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to single-bundle? A comprehensive systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23(3):696–739. doi:0.1007/s00167-013-2666-x.
  5. Qiu XS, Jiang H, Qian BP, et al. Influence of prone positioning on potential risk of aorta injury from pedicle screw misplacement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014; 27(5):E162–E167. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000075.
  6. Zaffagnini S, Bruni D, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, et al. Single-bundle patellar tendon versus non-anatomical double-bundle hamstrings ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized study at 8-year minimum follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19:390–397. doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1225-y.
  7. Järvelä T. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomize clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15(5):500–507. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0254-z.
  8. Kong L, Liu Z, Meng F, Shen Y. Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2017; 10(1):1–15.
  9. Järvelä T, Moisala AS, Sihvonen R, Järvelä S, Kannus P, Järvinen M. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation: prospective, randomized, clinical study with 2-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36(2):290–297. doi: 10.1177/0363546507308360.
  10. Yoon KH, Kim EJ, Kwon YB, Kim SG. Minimum 10-Year Results of Single- Versus Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical, Radiologic, and Survivorship Outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47(4):822–827. doi: 10.1177/0363546518825257.
  11. Bitar AC, Scalize AR, Abreu G, D’Elia C, Ribas LH, Castropil W. Return to Sport and Re-Injury Rate after Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with at least Five Years of Follow-Up. Arch Bone Joint Surg. 2021; 9(6):653–658. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2021.52664.2605.
  12. Dong Z, Niu Y, Qi J, Song Y, Wang F. Long term results after double and single bundle ACL reconstruction: Is there any difference? A Meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019; 53(2):92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2018.12.004.
  13. S Svantesson E, Sundemo D, Hamrin Senorski E, et al. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior to single-bundle reconstruction in terms of revision frequency: a study of 22,460 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25(12):3884–3891. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4387-4.
  14. Jarvela S, Kiekara T, Suomalainen P, Jarvela T. Double-Bundle versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Study with 10-Year Results. Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45(11):2578–2585. doi: 10.1177/0363546517712231.
  15. Mohtadi NG, Chan DS. A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Patellar Tendon, Hamstring Tendon, and Double-Bundle ACL Reconstructions: Patient-Reported and Clinical Outcomes at 5-Year Follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg. 2019; 101(11):949–960. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.01322.
  16. Mayr HO, Bruder S, Hube R, Bernstein A, Suedkamp NP, Stoehr A. Single-Bundle versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction—5-Year Results. Arthroscopy. 2018; 34(9):2647–2653. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.03.034.
  17. D’Elia CO, Bitar AC, Castropil W, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the double bundle technique - evaluation in the biomechanics laboratory. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015; 46(2):148–154. doi: 10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30231-7.
  18. D’Elia CO. Estudo comparativo da avaliação da rotação dos joelhos submetidos à reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior: feixe duplo x feixe simples. São Paulo: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; 2014.
  19. Pinczewski LA, Deehan DJ, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Clingeleffer A. A five-year comparison of patellar tendon versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2002; 30(4):523–536. doi: 10.1177/03635465020300041201.
  20. Zelle BA, Brucker PU, Feng MT, Fu FH. Anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med. 2006; 36(2):99–108. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200636020-00001.
  21. Gobbi A, Karnatzikos G, Lad DG. Single Versus Double ACL Reconstruction in Athletes. In: Sports Injuries. Doral M. KJ, eds.Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2014.
  22. Wright RW, Magnussen RA, Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: A systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(12):1159–1165. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00898.
  23. Wiggins AJ, Grandhi RK, Schneider DK, Stanfield D, Webster KE, Myer GD. Risk of Secondary Injury in Younger Athletes after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44(7):1861–1876. doi: 10.1177/0363546515621554.

  1. George MS, Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Current concepts review: Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34(12):2026–2037. doi: 10.1177/0363546506295026.
  2. Suomalainen P, Järvelä T, Paakkala A, Kannus P, Järvinen M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomized study with 5-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40(7):1511–1518. doi: 10.1177/0363546512448177.
  3. Grassi A, Kim C, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Zaffagnini S, Amendola A.What Is the Mid-term Failure Rate of Revision ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(10):2484–2499. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5379-5.
  4. Yoon KH, Kim JS, Kim SJ, Park M, Park SY, Park SE. Eight-year results of transtibial nonanatomic single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Clinical, radiologic outcomes and survivorship. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019; 27 :( 2):2309499019840827. doi: 10.1177/2309499019840827.
  5. Kyritsis P, Bahr R, Landreau P, Miladi R, Witvrouw E. Likelihood of ACL graft rupture: Not meeting six clinical discharge criteria before return to sport is associated with a four times greater risk of rupture. Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50(15):946–951. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908.
  6. Sepúlveda F, Sánchez L, Amy E, Micheo W. Anterior cruciate ligament injury: Return to play, function and long-term considerations. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2017; 16(3):172–178. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000356.
  7. Lai CC, Ardern CL, Feller JA, Webster KE. Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes return to preinjury sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review with meta-analysis of return to sport rates, graft rupture rates and performance outcomes. Br J Sports Med. 2018; 52(2):128–138. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096836.
  8. Volpi P, Quaglia A, Carimati G, Galli M, Papalia R, Petrillo S. Double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Failure rate and patients-reported outcomes at 4-11 years of follow up. J Orthop. 2019; 16(3):224–229. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.02.021.
  9. Babbie ER, eds. Survey research methods.2nd ed. Cengage Learning, Boston; 1973.

 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 12, Issue 1
January 2024
Pages 19-25

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 June 2022
  • Revise Date: 16 November 2023
  • Accept Date: 27 September 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics