To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

No significant difference in midterm results between anatomic double- & single-bundle ACLR

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
September 2016

No significant difference in midterm results between anatomic double- & single-bundle ACLR

Vol: 5| Issue: 9| Number:17| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Comparison of Anatomic Double- and Single-Bundle Techniques for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hamstring Tendon Autografts: A Prospective Randomized Study With 5-Year Clinical and Radiographic Follow-up

Am J Sports Med. 2016 May;44(5):1225-36

Contributing Authors:
I Karikis N Desai N Sernert L Rostgard-Christensen J Kartus

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

105 patients scheduled for anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with a hamstring autograft were randomized to an anatomic double-bundle or single-bundle reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a double-bundle reconstruction would offer greater knee stability postoperatively when measured using the pivot-shift test over a 5 year follow-up period...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue