• 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
• /
• 2008.04a
• /
• pp.11-11
• /
• 2008

• 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.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
• /
• 2007.10a
• /
• pp.89-90
• /
• 2007

• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2009.10a
• /
• pp.41-41
• /
• 2009

• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2009.10a
• /
• pp.42-43
• /
• 2009

• 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 Korean Orthopaedic Sports Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2013

This article provides an overview of the current concepts regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, including anatomy, biomechanics, operative techniques and clinical results. Many techniques have been introduced for ACL reconstruction: single bundle reconstruction, remnant preserving augmentation, and double bundle reconstruction. Each technique has its strong and weak points, and it is not sure which technique is superior than others. It is considered to suggest that rather than to select the same method of surgery in all patients, select the method of reconstruction depending on the characteristics of the individual patient, the state of the residual ligaments and extent of the damage.