Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term results of arthroscopically assisted anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon autograft: are there any predictors for the development of osteoarthritis?

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The primary purpose of our study was to analyse the long-term outcome of patients treated for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears by anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft. The secondary purpose was to identify predictive factors for good outcome and occurrence of osteoarthritis.

Methods

Sixty-three patients (m:f = 54:9; mean age at surgery, 27 ± 7 years) treated by ACL reconstruction were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 16 ± 1 years using IKDC2000, the SF36, Lysholm and Tegner score, Knee Society score, visual analogue scale for pain and satisfaction and KOOS. The femoral tunnel position was evaluated according to Sommer. It was also assessed in percentage of the Blumensaat line and the tibial tunnel position in percentage of the total anterior–posterior plateau length. The extent of osteoarthritis was graded according to the Kellgren–Lawrence score.

Results

The total IKDC2000 was normal in 20 (32 %), nearly normal in 29 (46 %), abnormal in 12 (19 %) and severely abnormal in 3 (5 %) of patients. The mean total SF-36 was 89 ± 13, the Lysholm score 95 ± 12, the Knee Society score 191 ± 16 and the total KOOS 84 ± 19. The Tegner score decreased from pre-injury 7(4–10) to 6 (2–10) at follow-up. The Kellgren–Lawrence score was normal in 17 (27 %), suspected osteoarthritis in 25 (40 %), minimal osteoarthritis in 5 (8 %), moderate osteoarthritis in 9 (14 %) and severe osteoarthritis in 3 patients (5 %). The femoral tunnel was in zone A in 43 patients (68 %), in zone B in 16 (25 %) and in zone C in 4 patients (7 %). The femoral tunnel position in percentage of the Blumensaat line was 49 ± 3 (range, 44–57), and the tibial tunnel position in percentage of the total anterior–posterior plateau length was 32 ± 6 (range, 21–46). Patients with meniscal lesion at the time of ACL tear showed significantly less favourable outcomes than those without.

Conclusions

Patients treated by the proposed ACL reconstruction technique showed on average good to excellent long-term results. A meniscal lesion at the time of ACL tear was highly predictive for less favourable outcome.

Level of evidence

IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahldén M, Kartus J, Ejerhed L, Karlsson J, Sernert N (2009) Knee laxity measurements after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using either bone-patellar-tendon-bone or hamstring tendon autografts, with special emphasis on comparison over time. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(9):1117–1124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ait Si Selmi T, Fithian D, Neyret P (2006) The evolution of osteoarthritis in 103 patients with ACL reconstruction at 17 years follow-up. Knee 13(5):353–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ, Committee IKD (2006) The international knee documentation committee subjective knee evaluation form: normative data. Am J Sports Med 34(1):128–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersson D, Samuelsson K, Karlsson J (2009) Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries with special reference to surgical technique and rehabilitation: an assessment of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 25(6):653–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bach BR, Tradonsky S, Bojchuk J, Levy ME, Bush-Joseph CA, Khan NH (1998) Arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon autograft. Five- to nine-year follow-up evaluation. Am J Sports Med 26(1):20–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Abate JA, Fleming BC, Nichols CE (2005) Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries, part 2. Am J Sports Med 33(11):1751–1767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Abate JA, Fleming BC, Nichols CE (2005) Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries, part I. Am J Sports Med 33(10):1579–1602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brandsson S, Faxén E, Kartus J, Jerre R, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J (2001) A prospective four- to seven-year follow-up after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Scand J Med Sci Sports 11(1):23–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Busija L, Osborne RH, Nilsdotter A, Buchbinder R, Roos EM (2008) Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cebesoy O (2006) What are the risk factors in the development of osteoarthritis following ACL reconstruction? Int Orthop 30(5):431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferretti A, Conteduca F, De Carli A, Fontana M, Mariani PP (1991) Osteoarthritis of the knee after ACL reconstruction. Int Orthop 15(4):367–371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gobbi A, Mahajan V, Karnatzikos G, Nakamura N (2012) Single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: is there any difference in stability and function at 3-year followup? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(3):824–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gossec L, Jordan JM, Lam MA, Fang F, Renner JB, Davis A et al (2009) Comparative evaluation of three semi-quantitative radiographic grading techniques for hip osteoarthritis in terms of validity and reproducibility in 1404 radiographs: report of the OARSI-OMERACT Task Force. Osteoarthr Cartil 17(2):182–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hefti F, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1(3–4):226–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Holm I, Oiestad BE, Risberg MA, Aune AK (2010) No difference in knee function or prevalence of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with 4-strand hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon-bone autograft: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 38(3):448–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hui C, Salmon LJ, Kok A, Maeno S, Linklater J, Pinczewski LA (2011) Fifteen-year outcome of endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft for “isolated” anterior cruciate ligament tear. Am J Sports Med 39(1):89–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Neyret P, Richmond JC et al (2006) Responsiveness of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 34(10):1567–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jarvela T, Suomalainen P (2011) ACL reconstruction with double-bundle technique: a review of clinical results. Phys Sportsmed 39(1):85–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L (1993) Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 306(6890):1437–1440

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Keays SL, Bullock-Saxton JE, Keays AC, Newcombe PA, Bullock MI (2007) A 6-year follow-up of the effect of graft site on strength, stability, range of motion, function, and joint degeneration after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendon graft. Am J Sports Med 35(5):729–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim SJ, Kumar P, Oh KS (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autogenous quadriceps tendon-bone compared with bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts at 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 25(2):137–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kostogiannis I, Ageberg E, Neuman P, Dahlberg L, Fridén T, Roos H (2007) Activity level and subjective knee function 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a prospective, longitudinal study of nonreconstructed patients. Am J Sports Med 35(7):1135–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lidén M, Sernert N, Rostgård-Christensen L, Kartus C, Ejerhed L (2008) Osteoarthritic changes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone or hamstring tendon autografts: a retrospective, 7-year radiographic and clinical follow-up study. Arthroscopy 24(8):899–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maletius W, Messner K (1999) Eighteen- to twenty-four-year follow-up after complete rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 27(6):711–717

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Meredick RB, Vance KJ, Appleby D, Lubowitz JH (2008) Outcome of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 36(7):1414–1421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meunier A, Odensten M, Good L (2007) Long-term results after primary repair or non-surgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a randomized study with a 15-year follow-up. Scand J Med Sci Sports 17(3):230–237

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, Whelan DB (2011) Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD005960

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Möller E, Weidenhielm L, Werner S (2009) Outcome and knee-related quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(7):786–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Myklebust G, Holm I, Maehlum S, Engebretsen L, Bahr R (2003) Clinical, functional, and radiologic outcome in team handball players 6 to 11 years after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 31(6):981–989

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Neuman P, Englund M, Kostogiannis I, Fridén T, Roos H, Dahlberg LE (2008) Prevalence of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis 15 years after nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury: a prospective cohort study. Am J Sports Med 36(9):1717–1725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. O`Neill DB (1996) Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A prospective randomized analysis of three techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(6):803–813

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Oiestad BE, Holm I, Aune AK, Gunderson R, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L et al (2010) Knee function and prevalence of knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study with 10 to 15 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med 38(11):2201–2210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)–validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8(6):439–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sadoghi P, Kropfl A, Jansson V, Muller PE, Pietschmann MF, Fischmeister MF (2011) Impact of tibial and femoral tunnel position on clinical results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 27(3):355–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Salmon L, Russell V, Musgrove T, Pinczewski L, Refshauge K (2005) Incidence and risk factors for graft rupture and contralateral rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 21(8):948–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Samuelsson K, Andersson D, Karlsson J (2009) Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries with special reference to graft type and surgical technique: an assessment of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 25(10):1139–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shelbourne KD, Gray T (2009) Minimum 10-year results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how the loss of normal knee motion compounds other factors related to the development of osteoarthritis after surgery. Am J Sports Med 37(3):471–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shen W, Jordan S, Fu F (2007) Review article: anatomic double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 15(2):216–221

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Siebold R (2011) The concept of complete footprint restoration with guidelines for single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(5):699–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sommer C, Friederich NF, Müller W (2000) Improperly placed anterior cruciate ligament grafts: correlation between radiological parameters and clinical results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8(4):207–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Song EK, Oh LS, Gill TJ, Li G, Gadikota HR, Seon JK (2009) Prospective comparative study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the double-bundle and single-bundle techniques. Am J Sports Med 37(9):1705–1711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Spindler KP, Huston LJ, Wright RW, Kaeding CC, Marx RG, Amendola A et al (2010) The prognosis and predictors of sports function and activity at minimum 6 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a population cohort study. Am J Sports Med 39(2):348–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Spindler KP, Warren TA, Callison JC, Secic M, Fleisch SB, Wright RW (2005) Clinical outcome at a minimum of five years after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(8):1673–1679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Streich NA, Zimmermann D, Bode G, Schmitt H (2010) Reconstructive versus non-reconstructive treatment of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. A retrospective matched-pair long-term follow-up. Int Orthop 35(4):607–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sun K, Tian SQ, Zhang JH, Xia CS, Zhang CL, Yu TB (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft. Arthroscopy 25(7):750–759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sutherland AG, Cooper K, Alexander LA, Nicol M, Smith FW, Scotland TR (2010) The long-term functional and radiological outcome after open reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(8):1096–1099

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Taylor DC, Deberardino TM, Nelson BJ, Duffey M, Tenuta J, Stoneman PD et al (2009) Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial using similar femoral and tibial fixation methods. Am J Sports Med 37(10):1946–1957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ververidis A, Verettas D, Kazakos K, Xarchas K, Drosos G, Psillakis I (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: outcome using a patellar tendon bone (PTB) autograft (one bone block technique). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(3):323–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Zaffagnini S, Bruni D, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bonanzinga T, Lopomo N, Bignozzi S et al (2011) Single-bundle patellar tendon versus non-anatomical double-bundle hamstrings ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized study at 8-year minimum follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(3):390–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zaffagnini S, Bruni D, Martelli S, Imakiire N, Marcacci M, Russo A (2008) Double-bundle ACL reconstruction: influence of femoral tunnel orientation in knee laxity analysed with a navigation system—an in vitro biomechanical study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Bruderholz, 4101, Bruderholz, Switzerland

    Pascal Gerhard, Niklaus F. Friederich & Michael T. Hirschmann

  2. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kantonsspital Bruderholz, 4101, Bruderholz, Switzerland

    Robert Bolt

  3. Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Klaus Dück

  4. Praxisklinik2000, Freiburg, Germany

    Ralph Mayer

Authors
  1. Pascal Gerhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Bolt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Klaus Dück
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralph Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Niklaus F. Friederich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael T. Hirschmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Hirschmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerhard, P., Bolt, R., Dück, K. et al. Long-term results of arthroscopically assisted anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon autograft: are there any predictors for the development of osteoarthritis?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 957–964 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2001-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2001-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation