Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1801756
Original Article

The 10-Year Outcomes of Single- versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Yang Ge
1   Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Shijingshan District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Ning Fan
1   Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Shijingshan District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Fangda Si
1   Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Shijingshan District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Lei Zang
1   Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Shijingshan District, Beijing, People's Republic of China
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have been compared for years, and long-term outcomes of the two techniques remain inconclusive. We compared the 10-year outcomes of SB and DB reconstruction, in terms of subjective scores, knee stability, graft failure, and osteoarthritis (OA). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies, without restrictions on study design, language, or publication date. The risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I) and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), respectively. Reconstructions scoring at least 8 on the Anatomic ACLR Scoring Checklist (AARSC) were considered anatomic. The results were narratively summarized and graphically represented using tables and forest plots. Our search included six studies (two randomized control trials [RCTs] and four cohort studies [CSs]), comprising 222 SB and 214 DB reconstruction patients, with an average follow-up of 11.4 years. Of these, four studies achieved a methodological rating of “good” or above. Bias risk was evaluated as “some concerns” in the RCTs and “serious” in the CSs. Six, four, four, and two studies reported on subjective scores, knee stability, graft failure, and OA, respectively. Except for one study that reported a higher Lysholm score (p = 0.007) in the DB group, no group differences in subjective scores were identified. According to one study, the DB group performed better on the Lachman test (p = 0.02) and the KT-2000 arthrometer (p = 0.024 and 0.034 for pulling and back pushing, respectively). Three studies revealed higher negative rates of the pivot shift test in the DB group. The incidence of graft failure and OA were not statistically significant between the SB and DB groups. The existing evidence does not conclusively determine whether DB reconstruction provides long-term advantages over SB reconstruction. Future research with larger sample sizes and higher levels of evidence is warranted.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - single bundle - double bundle - systematic review


Publication History

Received: 25 April 2024

Accepted: 10 December 2024

Article published online:
15 January 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sanders TL, Maradit Kremers H, Bryan AJ. et al. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction: a 21-year population-based study. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (06) 1502-1507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Hagmeijer MH, Hevesi M, Desai VS. et al. Secondary meniscal tears in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury: relationship among operative management, osteoarthritis, and arthroplasty at 18-year mean follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (07) 1583-1590
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (10) 1756-1769
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Yagi M, Wong EK, Kanamori A, Debski RE, Fu FH, Woo SL. Biomechanical analysis of an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30 (05) 660-666
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Maeyama A, Hoshino Y, Kato Y. et al. Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction outperforms any types of single bundle ACL reconstructions in controlling dynamic rotational laxity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (05) 1414-1419
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Morimoto Y, Ferretti M, Ekdahl M, Smolinski P, Fu FH. Tibiofemoral joint contact area and pressure after single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (01) 62-69
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Brophy RH, Wright RW, Matava MJ. Cost analysis of converting from single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (04) 683-687
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Karlsson J, Irrgang JJ, van Eck CF, Samuelsson K, Mejia HA, Fu FH. Anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, part 2: clinical application of surgical technique. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (09) 2016-2026
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Sernert N, Hansson E. Similar cost-utility for double- and single-bundle techniques in ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (02) 634-647
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Markolf KL, Park S, Jackson SR, McAllister DR. Anterior-posterior and rotatory stability of single and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (01) 107-118
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 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 (09) 2647-2653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Chen H, Chen B, Tie K, Fu Z, Chen L. Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res 2018; 13 (01) 50
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Xu M, Gao S, Zeng C. et al. Outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle versus double-bundle technique: meta-analysis of 19 randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (02) 357-365
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Desai N, Björnsson H, Musahl V. et al. Anatomic single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (05) 1009-1023
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Eliya Y, Qureshi AR, Kay J, Nagai K, Hoshino Y, de Sa D. Anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction moderately improved Tegner scores over the long-term: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (02) 436-448
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Maestro A, Herruzo I, Varillas-Delgado D, Martín-Saborido C. Subjective assessment reported by patients shows differences between single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 15385
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 van Eck CF, Gravare-Silbernagel K, Samuelsson K. et al. Evidence to support the interpretation and use of the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction checklist. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (20) e153
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Rothrauff BB, Jorge A, de Sa D, Kay J, Fu FH, Musahl V. Anatomic ACL reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (04) 1072-1084
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N, Cook JL, Wark JD. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2000; 10 (01) 2-11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tallon C, Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N. Outcome of surgery for chronic Achilles tendinopathy. A critical review. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (03) 315-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ramponi L, Yasui Y, Murawski CD. et al. Lesion size is a predictor of clinical outcomes after bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesions of the talus: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (07) 1698-1705
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Jakobsen RB, Engebretsen L, Slauterbeck JR. An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (10) 2232-2239
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Cowan J, Lozano-Calderón S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (08) 1693-1699
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Seppänen A, Kiekara T, Suomalainen P, Mäenpää H, Huhtala H, Järvelä T. No difference was found between double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions in terms of osteoarthritis at 15-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2024; 32 (11) 2770-2779
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Bowers AL, Spindler KP, McCarty EC, Arrigain S. Height, weight, and BMI predict intra-articular injuries observed during ACL reconstruction: evaluation of 456 cases from a prospective ACL database. Clin J Sport Med 2005; 15 (01) 9-13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Reijman M, Eggerding V, van Es E. et al. Early surgical reconstruction versus rehabilitation with elective delayed reconstruction for patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture: COMPARE randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2021; 372 (375) n375
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Seppänen A, Suomalainen P, Kiekara T, Mäenpää H, Huhtala H, Järvelä T. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in better International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading at fifteen year follow-up compared to single-bundle reconstruction. Int Orthop 2024; 48 (04) 905-912
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Mao Z, Wang J, Wang Y. et al. Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique has advantages in chondroprotection and knee laxity control compared with single-bundle technique: a long-term follow-up with a minimum of 12 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (09) 3105-3114
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Yela-Verdu C, Ares O, Albareda D. et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autologous hamstring single- versus double-bundle graft: a prospective study with 10-year follow-up. J Knee Surg 2023; 36 (10) 1043-1051
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Balasingam S, Karikis I, Rostgård-Christensen L. et al. Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is not superior to anatomic single-bundle reconstruction at 10-year follow-up: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 2022; 50 (13) 3477-3486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Zeng HL, Feng WJ, Li P. et al. Comparable long-term outcomes of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 10-year retrospective study. Chin J Tissue Eng Res 2018; 22 (23) 3692-3697
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Anandan V, Goh TC, Zamri KS. Single-bundle versus double-bundle arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of long-term functional outcomes. Cureus 2020; 12 (12) e12243
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Järvelä S, Kiekara T, Suomalainen P, Järvelä 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Loucas M, Loucas R, D'Ambrosi R, Hantes ME. Clinical and radiological outcomes of anteromedial portal versus transtibial technique in ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9 (07) 23 259671211024591
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Moorthy V, Sayampanathan AA, Tan AHC. Superior postoperative stability and functional outcomes with anteromedial versus transtibial technique of single-bundle autologous hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2021; 37 (01) 328-337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Woo SL, Kanamori A, Zeminski J, Yagi M, Papageorgiou C, Fu FH. The effectiveness of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstrings and patellar tendon. A cadaveric study comparing anterior tibial and rotational loads. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84 (06) 907-914
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Zantop T, Herbort M, Raschke MJ, Fu FH, Petersen W. The role of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament in anterior tibial translation and internal rotation. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (02) 223-227
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Seppänen A, Suomalainen P, Huhtala H, Mäenpää H, Kiekara T, Järvelä T. Double bundle ACL reconstruction leads to better restoration of knee laxity and subjective outcomes than single bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30 (05) 1795-1808
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Hoshino Y, Araujo P, Ahldén M. et al. Quantitative evaluation of the pivot shift by image analysis using the iPad. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (04) 975-980
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Berruto M, Uboldi F, Gala L, Marelli B, Albisetti W. Is triaxial accelerometer reliable in the evaluation and grading of knee pivot-shift phenomenon?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (04) 981-985
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Vaidya RK, Yoo CW, Lee J, Han H-S, Lee MC, Ro DH. Quantitative assessment of the pivot shift test with smartphone accelerometer. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (08) 2494-2501
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Hoshino Y, Kuroda R, Nagamune K. et al. In vivo measurement of the pivot-shift test in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee using an electromagnetic device. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (07) 1098-1104
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ. Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (03) 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Jonsson H, Riklund-Ahlström K, Lind J. Positive pivot shift after ACL reconstruction predicts later osteoarthrosis: 63 patients followed 5-9 years after surgery. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75 (05) 594-599
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Belk JW, Kraeutler MJ, Houck DA, McCarty EC. Knee osteoarthritis after single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2019; 35 (03) 996-1003
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Ye Z, Wu C, Xu J. et al. Meniscal resection increases the risk of residual knee laxity even in patients undergoing anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with eight strands of hamstring autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (07) 2784-2793
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Salmon LJ, Heath E, Akrawi H, Roe JP, Linklater J, Pinczewski LA. 20-year outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: the catastrophic effect of age and posterior tibial slope. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (03) 531-543
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Desai N, Alentorn-Geli E, van Eck CF. et al. A systematic review of single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (03) 862-872
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Peeler J, Leiter J, MacDonald P. Accuracy and reliability of anterior cruciate ligament clinical examination in a multidisciplinary sports medicine setting. Clin J Sport Med 2010; 20 (02) 80-85
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Shino K, Inoue M, Horibe S, Nakamura H, Ono K. Measurement of anterior instability of the knee. A new apparatus for clinical testing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1987; 69 (04) 608-613
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Kowalk DL, Wojtys EM, Disher J, Loubert P. Quantitative analysis of the measuring capabilities of the KT-1000 knee ligament arthrometer. Am J Sports Med 1993; 21 (05) 744-747
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 van Eck CF, Lesniak BP, Schreiber VM, Fu FH. Anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction flowchart. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (02) 258-268
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Hussein M, van Eck CF, Cretnik A, Dinevski D, Fu FH. Individualized anterior cruciate ligament surgery: a prospective study comparing anatomic single- and double-bundle reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (08) 1781-1788
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Ding DY, Tucker LY, Rugg CM. Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament tears treated nonoperatively versus with reconstruction: risk of subsequent surgery. Am J Sports Med 2022; 50 (03) 652-661
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar