Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are one of the most common knee injuries amongst elite athletes and usually require an ACL reconstruction (ACLR) to enable return to sport. Secondary surgery can result in a longer rehabilitation period and often a significant time away from sport which can have implications to the athlete including contract obligations and sponsorship. Advances in ACLR techniques and meniscal repair techniques as well as an awareness of meniscal root lesions, ramp lesions and lateral extraarticular procedures (LEAPs) during ACL surgery has improved outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rates of secondary surgery following the introduction of a systematic arthroscopic evaluation of the knee, improved meniscal repair techniques and the addition of a concomitant LEAP This systematic approach was introduced after October 2012 (10/2012). Professional athletes who underwent primary ACLR with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were identified from the (blinded for review). Those who had undergone major concomitant procedures such as multi-ligament reconstruction or osteotomy were excluded. Analysis of the database and review of medical records identified athletes who had underwent secondary surgery procedures.Introduction
Methods
It has been contentious whether an anatomic double-bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)is superior to that of a single-bundle technique. It has been hypothesized in the literature that the double-bundle technique could provide function closer to that of the anatomical knee joint. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes after single-bundle ACLR versus double-bundle ACLR. We hypothesized that the double-bundle technique would not be superior to the single-bundle technique. A retrospective, non-randomized, matched-paired comparative study was performed. Patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using either a double-bundle or single-bundle technique, between 2003 and 2008 were included and matched 1:1. Matching included age, sex, BMI, time from injury to surgery, side of injury and type of sport. Patients who underwent revision procedures, multiligament reconstruction or other ACLR techniques were excluded. Patients were subsequently followed up, noting occurrence of graft rupture and any other complications.Introduction
Methods
