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

• 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.

• 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.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.15 no.2
• /
• pp.140-145
• /
• 2011

후방십자인대 손상의 이상적 치료는 아직까지도 확립되지 않았다. 과거 몇 십 년간 후방십자인대에 대한 지식과 슬관절 안정성에 대한 후방십자인대의 생역학에 대한 지식이 증가하였다. 특히 이중 다발에 대한 지식이 증가하고 이러한 모든 노력들은 후방십자인대의 해부학적인 특징을 최대한 복원하기 위해 이루어졌다. 재건술의 수술 방법은 특정 손상 양상에 따라 그에 맞게 이루어지는데 만성 손상의 경우나 remnant가 거의 존재하지 않는 경우에는 이중 다발을 재건하는 것이 만족스러운 결과를 보인다. 아직까지 이중 다발 후방십자인대 재건술의 결과에 대해서는 논란이 많은 것은 사실이나 장기 추시가 가능해지면 이중 다발 후방십자인대 재건술이 해부학적으로나 생역학적으로 더욱 정상에 가깝기 때문에 더 나은 장기적 결과를 보여줄 것으로 예상된다.

• Journal of the KSME
• /
• v.50 no.2
• /
• pp.36-41
• /
• 2010

이 글에서는 정형외과 영역의 슬관절에 가장 중요한 구조물의 하나인 전방십자인대에 관한 해부학과 생역학을 이중다발재건술 측면에 대하여 소개하여 공학적인 중요성에 대한 이해를 돕고자 한다.

• 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.13 no.2
• /
• pp.111-114
• /
• 2009

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DBACLR) has been developed to produce better clinical outcomes in traditional single-bundle reconstruction, which showed considerable rate of dissatisfaction in restoration of stability and function of the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. There is plenty of evidence that DBACLR has theoretical advantages in anatomical, biomechanical, biological, kinematical, and possibly clinical standpoint compared with traditional one but still a lack of available clinical outcome studies with sufficient follow-up to demonstrate the substantial advantages of DBACLR. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical outcomes of double-bundle technique and to address controversy exists over the usefulness of this technique.

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

• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2007.10a
• /
• pp.89-90
• /
• 2007