Comparison of Synovialization and Clinical Outcomes between Anterior Cruciate Ligament Anteromedial Bundle Augmentation and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Abstract

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings between double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction for complete ACL rupture and anteromedial (AM) bundle augmentation with preservation of the posterolateral (PL) bundle in isolated AM bundle rupture. Between 2014 and 2021, we retrospectively analyzed 95 ACL reconstructions with at least 2 years of follow-up. Patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction from January 2014 to June 2021 were included in the study. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction (group 1) was performed in the cases involving male patients, high activity levels, age below 40 years, or when there was a patient preference for double-bundle reconstruction. In contrast, for partial ACL ruptures with an intact PL bundle confirmed on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, AM augmentation was performed (group 2). Preoperative and final follow-up clinical outcomes, along with synovial coverage during second-look arthroscopy, were compared between group 1 (65 cases) and group 2 (30 cases). Statistical analysis included correlation coefficients between the groups. The Lysholm score, Tegner activity scores, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee evaluation form score at final follow-up were 81.8 (±5.5), 7.2 (±0.9), and 79.4 (±6.7), respectively, in group 1, and they were 88.0 (±6.4, p = 0.038), 7.9 (±0.5, p = 0.042), and 86.2 (±5.4, p = 0.081), respectively, in group 2. For group 1, the Lachman test (p = 0.093) and the pivot shift test (p = 0.176) at the final follow-up showed no laxity in 57 and 59 knees, and there was plus one laxity in 8 and 6 knees. For group 2, there were no laxity in 27 and 28 knees, and plus one laxity in 3 and 2 knees. Synovial coverage area percentages of the grafted tendon were 74.3 (±10.7) and 86.9 (±7.3, p = 0.002) in groups and group 2, respectively, with superior synovial coverage observed in group 2. The AM bundle augmentation with preservation of the PL bundle in ACL injury yielded better synovial coverage and clinical scores compared with double-bundle ACL reconstruction for complete ACL rupture.

Keywords

arthroscopic surgery - anterior cruciate ligament - anterior cruciate - ligament reconstruction

Publication History

Received: 03 June 2024

Accepted: 10 December 2024

Article published online:
07 January 2025

• References

• 1 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
• 2 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
• 3 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
• 4 Koga H, Muneta T, Yagishita K. et al. Mid- to long-term results of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (01) 69-76
• 5 Oh J-Y, Kim K-T, Park Y-J. et al. Biomechanical comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Relat Res 2020; 32 (01) 14
• 6 Kondo E, Yasuda K, Onodera J, Kawaguchi Y, Kitamura N. Effects of remnant tissue preservation on clinical and arthroscopic results after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (08) 1882-1892
• 7 Lee BI, Kwon SW, Choi HS, Chun DI, Kim YB, Kim BM. Anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation using outside-in technique. Arthrosc Tech 2015; 4 (04) e331-e334
• 8 Lee BI, Kwon SW, Kim JB, Choi HS, Min KD. Comparison of clinical results according to amount of preserved remnant in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring graft. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (05) 560-568
• 9 Noh JH, Kyung HS, Roh YH, Kang TS. Remnant-preserving and re-tensioning technique to cover the graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (04) 1205-1210
• 10 Ochi M, Abouheif MM, Kongcharoensombat W, Nakamae A, Adachi N, Deie M. Double bundle arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preserving technique using a hamstring autograft. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 2011; 3: 30
• 11 Ochi M, Iwasa J, Uchio Y, Adachi N, Sumen Y. The regeneration of sensory neurones in the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (05) 902-906
• 12 Sonnery-Cottet B, Freychet B, Murphy CG, Pupim BH, Thaunat M. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and preservation: the single-anteromedial bundle biological augmentation (SAMBBA) technique. Arthrosc Tech 2014; 3 (06) e689-e693
• 13 Takahashi T, Kondo E, Yasuda K. et al. Effects of remnant tissue preservation on the tendon graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical and histological study. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (07) 1708-1716
• 14 Ahn GY, Nam IH, Moon GH. et al. The effect of a tibial remnant preservation technique on the synovialization of the graft tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: based on the second look arthroscopic findings. J Korean Arthroscopy Soc 2013; 17: 11-17
• 15 de Padua VBC, Saithna A, Chagas EFB. et al. Rate of tibial tunnel malposition is not changed by drilling entirely within the stump of preserved remnants during ACL reconstruction: a prospective comparative 3D-CT study. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9 (10) 23 259671211037324
• 16 Sonnery-Cottet B, Zayni R, Conteduca J. et al. Posterolateral bundle reconstruction with anteromedial bundle remnant preservation in ACL tears: clinical and MRI evaluation of 39 patients with 24-month follow-up. Orthop J Sports Med 2013; 1 (03) 23 25967113501624
• 17 Demirağ B, Ermutlu C, Aydemir F, Durak K. A comparison of clinical outcome of augmentation and standard reconstruction techniques for partial anterior cruciate ligament tears. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2012; 23 (03) 140-144
• 18 Tajima T, Chosa E, Yamaguchi N, Taniguchi N, Ishida Y. Remnant-preserving, selective single-bundle augmentation of the anterior cruciate ligament using a bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: a technical note. Knee 2016; 23 (03) 554-558
• 19 Lorenz S, Imhoff AB. [Reconstruction of partial anterior cruciate ligament tears]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2014; 26 (01) 56-62
• 20 Kazusa H, Nakamae A, Ochi M. Augmentation technique for anterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin Sports Med 2013; 32 (01) 127-140
• 21 Matsushita T, Kuroda R, Nishizawa Y. et al. Clinical outcomes and biomechanical analysis of posterolateral bundle augmentation in patients with partial anterior cruciate ligament tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (04) 1279-1289
• 22 Rao AJ, Cvetanovich GL, Zuke WA, Go B, Forsythe B. Single-bundle augmentation for a partial tear of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arthrosc Tech 2017; 6 (03) e853-e857
• 23 Dallo I, Chahla J, Mitchell JJ, Pascual-Garrido C, Feagin JA, LaPrade RF. Biologic approaches for the treatment of partial tears of the anterior cruciate ligament: a current concepts review. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (01) 23 25967116681724
• 24 Ahn GY, Nam IH, Lee YH. et al. Factors affecting the extent of graft tendon synovialization after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: based on second-look arthroscopic findings. Clin Orthop Surg 2018; 10 (04) 413-419
• 25 Sapega AA, Moyer RA, Schneck C, Komalahiranya N. Testing for isometry during reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Anatomical and biomechanical considerations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72 (02) 259-267
• 26 Hussein M, van Eck CF, Cretnik A, Dinevski D, Fu FH. Prospective randomized clinical evaluation of conventional single-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 281 cases with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (03) 512-520
• 27 Komzák M, Hart R, Okál F, Safi A. Does the posterolateral bundle influence rotational movement more than the anteromedial bundle in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?: a clinical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (10) 1372-1376
• 28 Buscayret F, Temponi EF, Saithna A, Thaunat M, Sonnery-Cottet B. Three-dimensional CT evaluation of tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction using the single anteromedial bundle biological augmentation (SAMBBA) technique. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (05) 23 25967117706511
• 29 Wang H, Liu Z, Li Y. et al. Is remnant preservation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to the standard technique? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 1652901
• 30 Masuda T, Kondo E, Onodera J. et al. Effects of remnant tissue preservation on tunnel enlargement after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the hamstring tendon. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (12) 23 25967118811293
• 31 Rice RS, Waterman BR, Lubowitz JH. Allograft versus autograft decision for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an expected-value decision analysis evaluating hypothetical patients. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (04) 539-547
• 32 Ahn GY, Lee TH, Lee KJ, Woo S. Comparison of clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic evaluations between anterior cruciate ligament anteromedial bundle augmentation and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res 2020; 32 (01) 45
• 33 Won SH, Lee BI, Park SY. et al. Outcome differences of remnant- preserving versus non-preserving methods in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis with subgroup analysis. Knee Surg Relat Res 2020; 32 (01) 7