Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 138, Issue 6, pp 827–834 | Cite as

Y-reconstruction could be better for ACL reconstruction in knee hyperextension versus double-bundle double-tunnel technique: a retrospective comparative study of 56 patients

  • Haobo Wu
  • Chiyuan Ma
  • Yan Xiong
  • Shigui Yan
  • Lidong Wu
  • Weigang Wu
Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of double-bundle (DB) single-tibial tunnel technique and double-tunnel technique for ACL reconstruction in patients with knee hyperextension.

Methods

Defined as having constitutional hyperextension of greater than 10°, 56 patients with knee hyperextension who underwent ACL reconstruction were included in this study. To exclude concomitant lesions, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in all knees. 24 patients (Group A) were treated with the anatomic DB/single-tibial tunnel ACL reconstruction and 32 patients (Group B) were treated with DB/double-tibial tunnel ACL reconstruction, all the included patients had knee hyperextension. Clinical results were evaluated by the extension angle, ROM, IKDC 2000 subjective score, rotational stability, pivot-shift test and anterior–posterior translation test before the operation and at the end of follow-up. MRI scan of the knee positioned in full extension was performed after 6 months post-operation. Location of tibial tunnels and graft signal intensity were assessed according to the MRI.

Results

Postoperative extension deficit was detected in Group B, ROM of the injured knee in Group A was from extension angle 8.91 ± 3.16° to flexion angle 115.58 ± 10.53°. ROM of the injured knee in Group B was from extension angle − 2.13 ± 5.88° to flexion angle 119.25 ± 12.63°. Flexion angles of two groups did not show any significant difference (p = 0.24), while extension angles were quite different (p < 0.0001). Group A was slightly higher than Group B in IKDC subjective scores, but without significant difference (Group A 45.1 ± 6.5, Group B 42.4 ± 4.8, p = 0.09). There was no significant difference between two groups in pivot-shift test. Post-operational MRI showed more anterior located tibial tunnel and higher graft signal intensity in Group B when compared with Group A. One patient in the Group B had ligament retear, and required revision surgery.

Conclusion

DB/single-tibial tunnel technique restored the knee stability and overcame the shortcomings (such as knee extension deficit and graft impingement) of DB/double tibial tunnel, which might be more suitable for ACL reconstruction in knees with hyperextension.

Level of evidence

Level II to III.

Keywords

ACL injury Knee hyperextension Roof impingement Double-bundle reconstruction Y-reconstruction 

Notes

Author contributions

All authors listed were involved in the study and preparation of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (No. Y17H060027), which is a Chinese government program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article.

Ethical approval

All conferences have been listed at the end of the paper with mark in the manuscript. All data supporting the conclusions are included in this article. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethics Committee of the 2nd affiliated hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Gianotti SM, Marshall SW, Hume PA, Bunt L (2009) Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: a national population-based study. J Sci Med Sport 12:622–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amis AA, Gupte CM, Bull AM, Edwards A (2006) Anatomy of the posterior cruciate ligament and the meniscofemoral ligaments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:257–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Petersen W, Zantop T (2007) Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament with regard to its two bundles. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:35–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xu M, Gao S, Zeng C, Han R, Sun J et al (2013) Outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle versus double-bundle technique: meta-analysis of 19 randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 29:357–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hofbauer M, Valentin P, Kdolsky R, Ostermann RC, Graf A et al (2010) Rotational and translational laxity after computer-navigated single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1201–1207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee S, Kim H, Jang J, Seong SC, Lee MC (2012) Comparison of anterior and rotatory laxity using navigation between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction: prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:752–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mei X, Zhang Z, Yang J (2016) Double-layer versus single-layer bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:1733–1739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen G, Wang S (2015) Comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after a minimum of 3-year follow-up: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:14604–14614PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yazdi H, Moradi A, Sanaie A, Ghadi A (2016) Does the hyperextension maneuver prevent knee extension loss after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? J Orthop Traumatol 17:327–331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petsche TS, Hutchinson MR (1999) Loss of extension after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 7:119–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goss BC, Hull ML, Howell SM (1997) Contact pressure and tension in anterior cruciate ligament grafts subjected to roof impingement during passive extension. J Orthop Res 15:263–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iriuchishima T, Tajima G, Ingham SJ, Shen W, Smolinski P et al (2010) Impingement pressure in the anatomical and nonanatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaver study. Am J Sports Med 38:1611–1617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iriuchishima T, Horaguchi T, Kubomura T, Morimoto Y, Fu FH (2011) Evaluation of the intercondylar roof impingement after anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3D-CT. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:674–679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim SJ, Moon HK, Kim SG, Chun YM, Oh KS (2010) Does severity or specific joint laxity influence clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1136–1141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Howell SM, Barad SJ (1995) Knee extension and its relationship to the slope of the intercondylar roof. Implications for positioning the tibial tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 23:288–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jagodzinski M, Richter GM, Passler HH (2000) Biomechanical analysis of knee hyperextension and of the impingement of the anterior cruciate ligament: a cinematographic MRI study with impact on tibial tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8:11–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maestro A, Sicilia A, Rodriguez L, Garcia P, Fdez-Lombardia J et al (2012) ACL reconstruction with single tibial tunnel: single versus double bundle. J Knee Surg 25:237–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adachi N, Ochi M, Uchio Y, Iwasa J, Kuriwaka M et al (2004) Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Single- versus double-bundle multistranded hamstring tendons. J Bone Jt Surg Br 86:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beighton P, Horan F (1969) Orthopaedic aspects of the Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. J Bone Jt Surg Br 51:444–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabuck SJ, Middleton KK, Maeda S, Fujimaki Y, Muller B et al (2012) Individualized anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech 1:e23-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsubara H, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, Toyoda K, Uemura M et al (2013) Intercondylar roof impingement after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with knee hyperextension. Am J Sports Med 41:2819–2827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Kitamura N, Tanabe Y et al (2004) Anatomic reconstruction of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring tendon grafts. Arthroscopy 20:1015–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muneta T, Koga H, Mochizuki T, Ju YJ, Hara K et al (2007) A prospective randomized study of 4-strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy 23:618–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H (2006) Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy 22:240–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grassi A, Bailey JR, Signorelli C, Carbone G, Tchonang Wakam A et al (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A practical guide. World J Orthop 7:638–649CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanamiya T, Hara M, Naito M (2004) Magnetic resonance evaluation of remodeling process in patellar tendon graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 419:202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saito K, Hatayama K, Terauchi M, Hagiwara K, Higuchi H et al (2015) Clinical outcomes after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of extreme knee hyperextension and normal to mild knee hyperextension. Arthroscopy 31:1310–1317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jagodzinski M, Leis A, Iselborn KW, Mall G, Nerlich M et al (2003) Impingement pressure and tension forces of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:85–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim SJ, Kim TE, Lee DH, Oh KS (2008) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients who have excessive joint laxity. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:735–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frank RM, Seroyer ST, Lewis PB, Bach BR Jr, Verma NN (2010) MRI analysis of tibial position of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1607–1611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howell SM, Berns GS, Farley TE (1991) Unimpinged and impinged anterior cruciate ligament grafts: MR signal intensity measurements. Radiology 179:639–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith JO, Yasen S, Risebury MJ, Wilson AJ (2014) Femoral and tibial tunnel positioning on graft isometry in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 22:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ettinger M, Petri M, Guenther D, Liu C, Krusche C et al (2013) Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction restricts knee extension in knees with hyperextension. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2057–2062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howell SM (1998) Principles for placing the tibial tunnel and avoiding roof impingement during reconstruction of a torn anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6(Suppl 1):S49-55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hatayama K, Terauchi M, Saito K, Higuchi H, Yanagisawa S et al (2013) The importance of tibial tunnel placement in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 29:1072–1078CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee MC, Seong SC, Lee S, Chang CB, Park YK et al (2007) Vertical femoral tunnel placement results in rotational knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 23:771–778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kato Y, Maeyama A, Lertwanich P, Wang JH, Ingham SJ et al (2013) Biomechanical comparison of different graft positions for single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:816–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haobo Wu
    • 1
  • Chiyuan Ma
    • 1
  • Yan Xiong
    • 1
  • Shigui Yan
    • 1
  • Lidong Wu
    • 1
  • Weigang Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, College of MedicineZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations