• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.04a
• /
• pp.11-11
• /
• 2008

• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.04a
• /
• pp.47-47
• /
• 2008

• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2009.10a
• /
• pp.53-54
• /
• 2009

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.198-204
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the merits and demerits of double bundle reconstruction and achieve improvements hereafter, by comparing the results of double bundle and single bundle reconstruction using tibialis anterior allograft. Materials and Methods: Twenty seven patients were divided to undergo either double bundle(n=14) or single bundle(n=13) reconstruction with tibialis anterior allograft tendon. The evaluation methods were AP laxity with KT-2000 arthrometer, isokinetic knee strength measurements, pivot-shift test, IKDC subjective score, Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, radiographic evaluations with postoperative MRI, and second look arthroscopy. Results: Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity score were significantly better in double bundle reconstruction. In pivot-shift test, single bundle reconstruction was evaluated as grade 0 in 10 of the knees, grade 1 in 1, and grade 2 in 2. Double bundle reconstruction was evaluated as grade 0 in 13, and grade 2 in 1. In second look arthroscopy, single bundle was evaluated as excellent in 6 of the knees, fair in 7, anteromedial bundle of double bundle reconstruction was excellent in 13 and fair in 1, and posterolateral bundle was excellent in 4, fair in 9, and poor in 1. There were no significant differences in other evaluations. Conclusion: Favorable outcome may be expected with double bundle reconstruction of ACL. However there are still need for improvement in terms of reconstruction technique and rehabilitation protocol to reduce PL bundle injury.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.92-98
• /
• 2007

Purposes: The purpose of this study was to report surgical technique of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL) reconstruction and to compare the short-term clinical results between arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Materials and Methods: From May 2005 to May 2006, ninety-eight patients were underwent ACL reconstruction. We designed prospective study with sixty-one patients who were revealed isolated ACL injury. We serially checked clinical and radiologic data preoperatively and postoperatively. We compared single-bundle with double-bundle ACL reconstruction patients with preoperative datas and postoperatively 1-year data. There were 30 single bundle reconstruction and 31 double bundle reconstruction. Stability was assessed objectively by anterior stress radiographs with the $Telos^{(R)}$ device and the maximal manual test with the KT-2000 arthrometer. The clinical results were assessed by IKDC(International Knee Documentation Committee) and OAK(Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie) scores. Also, we evaluated postoperative thigh circumference and range of motion. All of operations were done by only one surgeon. Results: At single-bundle reconstruction group, preoperative AP instability which was checked by $Telos^{(R)}$ device and the maximal manual test with the KT-2000 arthrometer was $7.9{\pm}3.3$ and $7.4{\pm}2.0$, respectively. At double-bundle reconstruction group, it was $8.3{\pm}3.5$ and $7.9{\pm}3.2$, respectively. Residual AP laxity checked at 1 year after operation was $1.9{\pm}1.2$ and $2.2{\pm}1.6$ in single-bundle reconstruction group, and $1.1{\pm}0.9$ and $1.0{\pm}1.0$ in double-bundle reconstruction group. So, double-bundle reconstruction had better results in both anterior stress radiographs with the $Telos^{(R)}$ device and the maximal manual test with the KT-2000 arthrometer, and there were significant differences in statistics. But, clinical results such as IKDC(International Knee Documentation Committee) scores, OAK(Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie) scores, thigh circumference and range of motion had no significant difference between two groups. Conclusions: On the basis of stability, the side-to-side anterior laxity of double-bundle ACL reconstruction was significantly better than that of single-bundle reconstruction, although there were no significant differences in the other clinical measures among them.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.13-19
• /
• 2010

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the postoperative knee stability and functional scores between single- and double- bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction at a minimum 2 years follow-up. Materials and Methods: 56 patients (group T) with ACL injury in one knee were recruited with 27 allocated to the double bundle ACL reconstruction group (group D) and 29 to the single bundle ACL reconstruction group (group S). Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, Lachman and pivot shift test results, and radiographic stabilities were also compared between two groups. Results: Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores were similar in the two groups at 2 years follow-up. Furthermore, stability results of Lachman test, pivot shift test, and radiological findings failed to reveal any significant inter-group differences. Conclusion: Double bundle ACL reconstruction does not produce better in clinical outcomes and postoperative stabilities.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.203-208
• /
• 2006

Purpose: Previous transtibial double bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction methods have several problems in graft length and tibial fixation. We introduce new surgical method that is less restrictive by graft length and is more stable with single tibial fixation. Operative technique: After diagnostic arthroscopy, we prepare the graft, ream the tibial tunnel and perform the procedure for TransFix tibial fixation. Femoral 2 tunnel is made and graft is passed via anteromedial (AM) portal. Tibial fixation is done and femoral 2 graft is fixed sequentially at each knee position. Conclusion: TtransFix tibial single fixation method in double bundle PCL reconstruction provides more stable fixation, more free graft selection and prevents graft damage by passing the graft via AM portal.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.125-131
• /
• 2011

Optimal treatment of the torn posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) remains controversial. The type of tibial fixation (transtibial vs inlay), the femoral tunnel position within the femoral footprint (central, eccentric or isometric), and the number of bundles in the reconstruction (single-bundle vs double-bundle) are controversial issues. The PCL has a better chance of spontaneously healing than the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) because of a rich blood supply (near the branch of the middle genicular artery) and coverage with a thicker synovium. In general, for easier passage of the graft and full visualization of the original ligament attachment site during the precise positioning of the tunnel, the remaining PCL fibers are usually debrided during reconstruction. However, the remaining remnant structures would significantly contribute to the posterior stability of the knee joint, the healing of the graft, preserving proprioceptive function of the mechanoreceptors in the PCL. Double bundle PCL reconstruction may result in some surgical complications because of increased complexity of making tunnel. Therefore, single bundle PCL reconstruction with remnant preservation seems to be an effective procedure.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.132-139
• /
• 2011

The concept of double-bundle ACL reconstruction was introduced recently to restore the anatomical and biomechanical functions of the native ACL. According to anatomical and biomechanical studies, the separate reconstruction of anteromedial and posterolateral bundle expect to increase the overall postoperative stability and clinical results compared to single-bundle ACL reconstruction. But there is still a lack of available clinical outcome studies with sufficient follow-up to demonstrate the real advantages of double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence to support double-bundle technique and to address controversies existing over the usefulness of this technique.

• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2009.10a
• /
• pp.57-57
• /
• 2009

관절경적 경경골 단일 다발 후방십자인대 재건술은 전통적으로 가장 흔하게 사용되는 사용되는 술기이다. 그러나, 후방십자 단독 파열시 이 술기의 결과에 대한 임상 평가 및 효용성에 대한 임상적 분석 자료가 거의 없는 실정이다. 이 술기를 시행받은 환자군들에서 객관적 슬관절 이완이 존재함에도 불구하고 주관적 슬관절 기능 장애는 우수한 결과를 나타낸다고 인정되어 왔다. 후방십자인대 단독 파열 후 경경골 단일 다발 재건술을 시행한 문헌 10개를 대상으로 잔존하는 후방 이완과 주관적, 객관적인 기능 평가, 활동성 정도, 환자 만족도, 골관절염의 발생 빈도, 술후 합병증을 체계적으로 고찰하였다. 술전 후방 슬관절 이완은 8.38~12.3 mm에서(4문헌) 술후 1.96~5.9 mm으로(9 문헌) 호전되었다. Lysholom 점수는 평균 81~100점이었다(9 문헌). IKDC는 75%에서 정상 또는 거의 정상의 결과를 보였다(6 문헌). 평균 Tegner 활동도는 4.7~6.3점이었다(8 문헌). 이번 고찰을 통한 결과에서 이 술기 후 퇴행성 변화가 관찰되었으며 보고된 합병증은 거의 없었다. 후방십자인대 단독 파열에서 경경골 단일 다발 재건술은 정상 슬관절의 안정성까지 회복하지는 못하나 한 등급 정도의 후방 슬관절 이완의 호전을 기대할 수 있다. 재활 및 운동으로의 회복에 대한 주관적 슬관절 점수는 80점이며 75%의 정상 또는 정상에 가까운 객관적 결과를 보여주었다. 이 술기가 퇴행성 관절염을 예방할 수는 없더라도 이러한 결과는 후방십자인대 재건 술기의 평가에 도움이 될 것으로 사료된다.