We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle versus double-bundle technique: meta-analysis of 19 randomized controlled trials.
Arthroscopy 2013 Februrary
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yields better improvement in stability and functional recovery than the single-bundle technique.
METHODS: An Internet search was performed of the Pubmed, Embase, AMED, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases to find all published randomized controlled trials of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction treated with the double-bundle versus single-bundle technique. Outcomes of stability improvement and functional recovery were meta-analyzed.
RESULTS: One thousand six hundred sixty-seven patients in 19 randomized controlled trials were involved in the meta-analysis. The overall relative risk (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model in the pivot shift test and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score for single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction were 0.77 (0.67, 0.89) and 0.80 (0.68, 0.93), respectively. The overall relative risk calculated with the fixed effects model in the Lachman test was 0.84 (0.78 to 0.92). The overall standard mean differences (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model were 0.26 (0.05, 0.46) for anterior side-to-side difference; -0.08 (-0.28,0.12) for Lysholm score; Tegner activity scale, -0.41 (-0.85, 0.03) for Tegner activity score; and -0.08 (-0.32, 0.15) for IKDC subjective score.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of random controlled trials revealed that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in significantly better anterior and rotational stability and higher IKDC objective scores compared with single-bundle reconstruction. However, the meta-analysis did not detect any significant differences in subjective outcome measures between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction, as evidenced by the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and IKDC subjective score.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.
METHODS: An Internet search was performed of the Pubmed, Embase, AMED, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases to find all published randomized controlled trials of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction treated with the double-bundle versus single-bundle technique. Outcomes of stability improvement and functional recovery were meta-analyzed.
RESULTS: One thousand six hundred sixty-seven patients in 19 randomized controlled trials were involved in the meta-analysis. The overall relative risk (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model in the pivot shift test and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score for single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction were 0.77 (0.67, 0.89) and 0.80 (0.68, 0.93), respectively. The overall relative risk calculated with the fixed effects model in the Lachman test was 0.84 (0.78 to 0.92). The overall standard mean differences (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model were 0.26 (0.05, 0.46) for anterior side-to-side difference; -0.08 (-0.28,0.12) for Lysholm score; Tegner activity scale, -0.41 (-0.85, 0.03) for Tegner activity score; and -0.08 (-0.32, 0.15) for IKDC subjective score.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of random controlled trials revealed that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in significantly better anterior and rotational stability and higher IKDC objective scores compared with single-bundle reconstruction. However, the meta-analysis did not detect any significant differences in subjective outcome measures between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction, as evidenced by the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and IKDC subjective score.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app