A systematic review of single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist.

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to apply the anatomic ACL reconstruction scoring checklist (AARSC) and to evaluate the degree to which clinical studies comparing single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstructions are anatomic.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search was performed using the databases PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Studies published from January 1995 to January 2014 comparing SB and DB ACL reconstructions with clinical outcome measurements were included. The items from the AARSC were recorded for both the SB and DB groups in each study.

RESULTS

Eight-thousand nine-hundred and ninety-four studies were analysed, 77 were included. Randomized clinical trials (29; 38%) and prospective comparative studies (29; 38%) were the most frequent study type. Most studies were published in 2011 (19; 25%). The most commonly reported items for both SB and DB groups were as follows: graft type (152; 99%), femoral and tibial fixation method (149; 97% respectively), knee flexion angle during graft tensioning (124; 8%) and placement of the tibial tunnel at the ACL insertion site (101; 66%). The highest level of documentation used for ACL tunnel position for both groups was often one dimensional, e.g. drawing, operative notes or o'clock reference. The DB reconstruction was in general more thoroughly reported. The means for the AARSC were 6.9 ± 2.8 for the SB group and 8.3 ± 2.8 for the DB group. Both means were below a proposed required minimum score of 10 for anatomic ACL reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial underreporting of surgical data for both the SB and DB groups in clinical studies. This underreporting creates difficulties when analysing, comparing and pooling results of scientific studies on this subject.