Comparison of Knee Kinematics After Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction via the Medial Portal Technique With a Central Femoral Tunnel and an Eccentric Femoral Tunnel and After Anatomic Double-Bundle Reconstruction

Abstract

Background: Anatomic femoral tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is considered to be a key to good primary stability of the knee. There is still no consensus on whether a centrally placed single bundle in the anatomical femoral footprint can compare with anatomic double-bundle (DB) reconstruction. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine knee kinematics after single-bundle ACL reconstruction via the medial portal technique using 2 different femoral tunnel positions and to compare results with those of the anatomic DB technique. The hypotheses were that (1) single-bundle reconstruction using the medial portal technique with a centrally placed femoral tunnel relative to the native footprint (SB-central technique) would more closely restore intact knee kinematics compared with the same reconstruction technique with an eccentric femoral tunnel drilled in the anteromedial bundle footprint (SB-AM technique) and (2) DB reconstruction would result in superior kinematics compared with the SB-central technique. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Knee kinematics was examined in 10 fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees using a robotic/universal force-moment sensor system. Kinematics in simulated pivot-shift and 134-N anterior tibial loading tests were determined in different conditions within the same specimen: (1) intact ACL, (2) deficient ACL, (3) SB-AM, (4) SB-central, and (5) DB. Results: All reconstruction techniques significantly reduced anterior tibial translation (ATT) compared with a deficient ACL at 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, and 90° in the anterior tibial loading test (P < .01, repeated-measures analysis of variance) and at 0°, 15°, and 30° in the simulated pivot-shift test (P < .001). There were no significant differences in the SB-central group and the DB group compared with the intact ACL. Reconstruction in the SB-AM group resulted in significantly increased ATT compared with the intact ACL in near-to-extension angles in both tests (0°, 15°, and 30°; P < .01). SB-central and DB reconstructions both resulted in significantly reduced ATT, in some tests at ≤30°, compared with SB-AM reconstruction (P < .05). No significant differences between the SB-central and DB groups were found (P > .05). Conclusion: The SB-central technique restored intact knee kinematics more closely than did SB-AM reconstruction at time zero. There were no differences in knee kinematics between the DB and SB-central techniques. Clinical Relevance: Anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction provides similar knee kinematics as anatomic double-bundle reconstruction.