Y-reconstruction could be better for ACL reconstruction in knee hyperextension versus double-bundle double-tunnel technique: a retrospective comparative study of 56 patients

摘要

Purpose(#br)To compare the clinical outcomes of double-bundle (DB) single-tibial tunnel technique and double-tunnel technique for ACL reconstruction in patients with knee hyperextension.(#br) Methods(#br)Defined as having constitutional hyperextension of greater than 10°, 56 patients with knee hyperextension who underwent ACL reconstruction were included in this study. To exclude concomitant lesions, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in all knees. 24 patients (Group A) were treated with the anatomic DB/single-tibial tunnel ACL reconstruction and 32 patients (Group B) were treated with DB/double-tibial tunnel ACL reconstruction, all the included patients had knee hyperextension. Clinical results were evaluated by the extension angle, ROM, IKDC 2000 subjective score, rotational stability, pivot-shift test and anterior–posterior translation test before the operation and at the end of follow-up. MRI scan of the knee positioned in full extension was performed after 6 months post-operation. Location of tibial tunnels and graft signal intensity were assessed according to the MRI.(#br) Results(#br)Postoperative extension deficit was detected in Group B, ROM of the injured knee in Group A was from extension angle 8.91 ± 3.16° to flexion angle 115.58 ± 10.53°. ROM of the injured knee in Group B was from extension angle − 2.13 ± 5.88° to flexion angle 119.25 ± 12.63°. Flexion angles of two groups did not show any significant difference ( p = 0.24), while extension angles were quite different ( p < 0.0001). Group A was slightly higher than Group B in IKDC subjective scores, but without significant difference (Group A 45.1 ± 6.5, Group B 42.4 ± 4.8, p = 0.09). There was no significant difference between two groups in pivot-shift test. Post-operational MRI showed more anterior located tibial tunnel and higher graft signal intensity in Group B when compared with Group A. One patient in the Group B had ligament retear, and required revision surgery.(#br) Conclusion(#br)DB/single-tibial tunnel technique restored the knee stability and overcame the shortcomings (such as knee extension deficit and graft impingement) of DB/double tibial tunnel, which might be more suitable for ACL reconstruction in knees with hyperextension.(#br) Level of evidence(#br)Level II to III.

关键词