Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Assessment With Vertical Jump Test

Purpose: The study was designed to compare the clinical results of traditional single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with those of double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction. Methods: This study comprised 80 patients aged 18 to 45 years with an isolated ACL lesion: 40 patients underwent SB reconstruction, and 40 patients underwent DB reconstruction. Patients were assessed preoperatively with functional assessment including the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 knee subjective form and visual analog scale, as well as physical examination (including the pivot-shift test and instrumented knee laxity measurement). Vertical jump assessment with the Optojump system (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) has been introduced as a method to compare functional ability between the 2 surgical techniques. The same protocol was repeated 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after surgery. Results: No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups concerning subjective evaluation, thigh girth difference, mean visual analog scale score, range of motion, and Lachman and anterior drawer tests (P = not significant). A statistically higher number of patients in the SB group showed a positive pivot-shift test and a higher side-to-side difference when measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) than in the DB group (P < .001). Better mean jumping performance results were reported in the DB group compared with the SB group (P < .001). The average performance results for the injured limb were not significantly reduced compared with those of the uninjured limb in the DB group 12 months after surgery. At 2 years, a restoration of jumping ability in the ACL-reconstructed limb was achieved in both groups regardless of the technique used. Conclusions: DB ACL reconstruction has been proven to be superior to the SB technique with regard to knee stability and vertical jump performance. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective comparative study.