{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0361800588977703, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01809002944888515, 'mean_word_length': 5.128865979381444, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Double-Bundle versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background One aspect of the debate over the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament is whether it should be carried out with the single-bundle or double-bundle technique. Hypothesis The double-bundle technique results in fewer graft failures than the single-bundle technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Study Design Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods A total of 153 patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autografts using aperture interference screw fixation: single-bundle technique (SB group, n = 78) and double-bundle technique (DB group, n = 75). The evaluation methods were clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometric measurement, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Lysholm knee scores, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. All of the operations were performed by 1 experienced orthopaedic surgeon, and all clinical assessments were made by 2 blinded and independent examiners. A musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to the clinical data made the MRI interpretation. Results There were no differences between the study groups preoperatively. Ninety percent of patients (n = 138) were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up (range, 24-37 months). Eight patients (7 in the SB group and 1 in the DB group) had graft failure during the follow-up and had anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery (P = .04). In addition, 7 patients (5 in the SB group and 2 in the DB group) had an invisible graft on the MRI assessment at the 2-year follow-up. Also, the anteromedial bundle was partially invisible in 2 patients and the posterolateral bundle in 9 patients. Together, the total number of failures and invisible grafts were significantly higher in the SB group (12 patients, 15%) than the DB group (3 patients, 4%) (P = .024). No significant group differences were found in the knee scores or stability evaluations at the follow-up. Conclusion This 2-year randomized trial showed that the revision rate of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was significantly lower with the double-bundle technique than that with the single-bundle technique. However, additional years of follow-up are needed to reveal the long-term results.