• Jon Karlsson, James J Irrgang, Carola F van Eck, Kristian Samuelsson, Hector A Mejia, and Freddie H Fu.
• Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. ffu@upmc.edu
• Am J Sports Med. 2011 Sep 1; 39 (9): 2016-26.

AbstractThe anterior cruciate ligament has been and is of great interest to scientists and orthopaedic surgeons worldwide. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was initially performed using an open approach. When the approach changed from open to arthroscopic reconstruction, a 2- and, later, 1-incision technique was applied. With time, researchers found that traditional arthroscopic single-bundle reconstruction did not fully restore rotational stability of the knee joint and a more anatomic approach to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament has been proposed. Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction intends to replicate normal anatomy, restore normal kinematics, and protect long-term knee health. Although double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has been shown to result in better rotational stability in both biomechanical and clinical studies, it is vital to differentiate between anatomic and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The latter is merely a step closer to reproducing the native anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament; however, it can still be done nonanatomically. To evaluate the potential benefits of reconstructing the anterior cruciate ligament in an anatomic fashion, accurate, precise, and reliable outcome measures are needed. These include, for example, T2 magnetic resonance imaging mapping of cartilage and quantification of graft healing on magnetic resonance imaging. Furthermore, there is a need for a consensus on which patient-reported outcome measures should be used to facilitate homogeneous reporting of outcomes.

16 keywords...

hide…