NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Sports Med. 2010 April ; 38(4): 713–720. doi:10.1177/0363546509353406.

Single-Tunnel Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament

Reconstruction With Anatomical Placement of Hamstring
Tendon Graft:
Can It Restore Normal Knee Joint Kinematics?

Hemanth R. Gadikota, MS*, Jia-Lin Wu, MD*,†, Jong Keun Seon, MD*,‡, Karen Sutton, MD*,
Thomas J. Gill, MD*, and Guoan Li, PhD*,§
*Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General

Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

†Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical
Center, Taipei, Taiwan
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

‡Department of Orthopaedics, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam, South

Korea

Abstract
Background—Anatomical reconstruction techniques that can restore normal joint kinematics
without increasing surgical complications could potentially improve clinical outcomes and help
manage anterior cruciate ligament injuries more efficiently.
Hypothesis—Single-tunnel double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with
anatomical placement of hamstring tendon graft can more closely restore normal knee anterior-
posterior, medial-lateral, and internal-external kinematics than can conventional single-bundle
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Study Design—Controlled laboratory study.
Methods—Kinematic responses after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and
single-tunnel double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with anatomical placement
of hamstring tendon graft were compared with the intact knee in 9 fresh-frozen human cadaveric
knee specimens using a robotic testing system. Kinematics of each knee were determined under an
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

anterior tibial load (134 N), a simulated quadriceps load (400 N), and combined torques (10 Nm
valgus and 5 Nm internal tibial torques) at 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion.
Results—Anterior tibial translations were more closely restored to the intact knee level after
single-tunnel double-bundle reconstruction with anatomical placement of hamstring tendon graft
than with a single-bundle reconstruction under the 3 external loading conditions. Under simulated
quadriceps load, the mean internal tibial rotations after both reconstructions were lower than that
of the anterior cruciate ligament–intact knee with no significant differences between these 3 knee
conditions at 0° and 30° of flexion (P > .05).The increased medial tibial shifts of the anterior
cruciate ligament–deficient knees were restored to the intact level by both reconstruction
techniques under the 3 external loading conditions.

© 2010 The Author(s)

§
Address correspondence to Guoan Li, PhD, Bioengineering Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, 55
Fruit Street, GRJ 1215, Boston, MA 02114 (gli1@partners.org).
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interests in their authorship and publication of this contribution.
 Gadikota et al. Page 2

Conclusion—Single-tunnel double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with

anatomical placement of hamstring tendon graft can better restore the anterior knee stability
compared with a conventional single-bundle reconstruction. Both reconstruction techniques are
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

efficient in restoring the normal medial-lateral stability but overcorrect the internal tibial rotations.
Clinical Relevance—Single-tunnel double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
with anatomical placement of hamstring tendon graft could provide improved clinical outcomes
over a conventional single-bundle reconstruction.

Keywords
anterior cruciate ligament (ACL); anatomical single-tunnel double-bundle reconstruction; single-
bundle reconstruction; knee kinematics; robotic testing system

Surgical reconstruction of a ruptured ACL is the most commonly adopted treatment option
for patients with repeated episodes of giving way with activities of daily living or a lifestyle
including high-demand activities.4,23 Single-bundle ACL reconstruction techniques using
either a bone–patellar tendon–bone graft or a quadrupled hamstring tendon graft have been
shown to successfully restore normal anterior stability of the knee joint.16,33 However, some
studies have reported persistent rotational instability and long-term degenerative changes
even after such a surgical intervention.1,11,15,29 Both in vitro and in vivo studies have
indicated that a single-bundle ACL reconstruction could not restore the normal 6 degrees of
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

freedom knee kinematics.26,38

With a greater understanding of the ACL anatomy and function, several anatomical ACL
reconstruction techniques have been proposed. Some authors have described that an
anatomical ACL reconstruction can be achieved by reconstructing both the anteromedial
(AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles of the ACL by using various combinations of femoral
and tibial tunnels.8,21,27,28,31,37 A few other techniques described in the literature to achieve
anatomical ACL reconstructions include placing the femoral and tibial tunnels at the center
of the anatomical footprints, aperture fixation of the graft, creating an oval-shaped opening
of the femoral tunnel, and creating a rectangular femoral tunnel and a half rectangular, half
round tibial tunnel.2,5,7,13,30

Some biomechanical studies have reported that an anatomical double-tunnel double-bundle

ACL reconstruction can sufficiently restore the intact knee kinematics under various
external loads.21,35,36 However, a consensus on the superiority of such techniques over the
single-bundle ACL reconstruction in clinical outcomes is yet to be established. A recent
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported that no clinically significant
differences between the single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstruction exist with
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

respect to KT-1000 arthrometer and pivot-shift testing.24 Therefore, a debate on the need for
such a technically challenging procedure as an alternative to the conventional single-bundle
ACL reconstruction is yet to be resolved.16,22,24

Recently, some authors have proposed anatomical ACL reconstruction techniques by using a
single femoral and tibial tunnel as opposed to creating multiple tunnels.7,10,30,31 However,
few studies have investigated the efficacy of such ACL reconstruction techniques using
hamstring tendon grafts, especially under physiological loading conditions.10 Hence, this
study was designed to evaluate if an anatomical ACL reconstruction using a single femoral
and tibial tunnel that places a hamstring tendon graft posteriorly along the contour of the
posterior border of the lateral femoral condyle, restoring the anatomical joint line attachment
at the native ACL footprint and the 2 bundles of the ACL, could provide superior joint
stability compared with a conventional hamstring tendon graft single-bundle ACL
reconstruction by using a robotic testing system. We hypothesized that single-tunnel double-

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 3

bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with anatomical placement of hamstring

tendon graft (‘‘anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction’’) can more closely restore the
intact knee kinematics than can a conventional single-bundle ACL reconstruction.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was performed by using 9 fresh-frozen human cadaveric knee specimens from 7
male and 2 female donors with a mean age of 55 years (range, 47–60 years). All specimens
were stored at −20°C until 1 day before the experiment when they were thawed at room
temperature for 24 hours. Each specimen was examined for osteoarthritis and ACL injury by
using fluoroscopy and manual stability tests. Specimens with either of these conditions were
excluded from this study. To facilitate the fixation of the femur and tibia, musculature
surrounding the diaphyses was stripped. A bone screw was used to firmly secure the fibula
to the tibia in its anatomical position. The tibial and the femoral diaphyses were then potted
in hollow cylindrical cardboard tubes by using bone cement. After the bone cement
solidified, the cardboard tubes were removed, leaving solid cylinders of bone cement with
the femur or tibia embedded in them. These constructs were then secured in thick-walled
aluminum cylinders that were attached to the robotic testing system.

The specimen was then installed on a robotic testing system and tested under various
loading conditions. Details on how this robotic testing system can be used to study knee
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

joint kinematics have been described in previous studies.10,18,38 The robotic testing system
was used to determine a passive flexion path of the ACL-intact knee from 0° to 120° in 1°
increments of knee flexion. This passive flexion path was repeated 5 times before the
determination of kinematics under the external loads at each knee condition. After the
determination of the passive flexion path, kinematic responses of each ACL-intact knee
were obtained under 3 different external loading conditions (an anterior tibial load of 134 N,
a simulated quadriceps load of 400 N, and combined torques of 10 N·m valgus tibial torque
and 5 N·m internal tibial torque) at selected flexion angles of 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, and 90°. At
each selected flexion angle, a selected external load was applied to the tibia by the robot
while it simultaneously recorded the kinematic responses.

After the intact knee kinematics were determined, the ACL was resected through a small
medial arthrotomy under arthroscopy guide to simulate an ACL-deficient knee condition.
The arthrotomy and skin were repaired in layers by sutures. After the resection of the ACL,
kinematics of the ACL-deficient knee were determined under the same external loading
conditions that were used to test the ACL-intact knee.

Single-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Surgical Technique

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Both reconstructions were performed under arthroscopic-assisted techniques by a single

surgeon while the specimen was still installed on the robotic testing system. The surgery
began by harvesting the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons that were used as the graft
material for both ACL reconstructions. The harvested grafts were pretensioned on a graft
preparation board (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, Massachusetts) with 20 lb of force while the
tibial and femoral tunnels were prepared (20–25 minutes). First, the tibial tunnel was placed
at the center of the ACL remnant through the AM surface of the tibia at the level of the tibial
tubercle using a tibial guide (DePuy Mitek) set at 55°. After the tibial tunnel placement, a K-
wire was placed into the lateral femoral condyle at 1:30 or 10:30 position through the AM
portal with the knee flexed to 120° using an offset guide (DePuy Mitek). With the inserted
K-wire as the reference, a femoral tunnel was reamed to the lateral cortex of the distal femur
using a 4.5-mm EndoButton drill (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, Massachusetts).
A 30-mm-long femoral socket was then created by a cannulated reamer that matched the
prepared graft diameter. After both tunnels were created, the prepared quadrupled hamstring

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 4

tendon graft was passed through the tibial tunnel into the joint and finally through the
femoral socket and was secured with a 20-mm EndoButton CL (Smith & Nephew
Endoscopy) on the lateral cortex of the femur. A tibial INTRAFIX system (DePuy Mitek),
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

which consists of a sheath with 4 quadrants and an interference screw, was used to secure
the distal end of the quadrupled graft. All 4 strands were placed within a single quadrant of
the sheath, and an interference screw was then inserted into the sheath while 40 N of axial
graft tension was applied at full extension. After the graft was fixed at both ends, arthrotomy
and skin incisions were repaired by sutures. After the single-bundle ACL reconstruction
(Figure 1A), the kinematic responses of the reconstructed knee were determined under the 3
external loading conditions.

Anatomical Single-Tunnel Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Surgical Technique

After the determination of the single-bundle ACL-reconstructed knee kinematics, the graft
was released from the joint and was examined for any damage. If there was no noticeable
damage, the same graft was reused for anatomical single-tunnel double-bundle ACL
reconstruction (Figure 1B). The femoral and tibial tunnels that were used for single-bundle
ACL reconstruction were reused after dilating both tunnels by 1 mm for anatomical single-
tunnel ACL reconstruction. The semitendinosus and gracilis tendons were looped over a
single strand of suture, and only the AM bundle was colored on the proximal end of the graft
to easily identify the bundle. To achieve a desired position for the AM and PL bundles, a
graft-positioning tool (DePuy Mitek) was used. The graft was placed in the fork of the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

positioning tool with 1 bundle on either side of the fork. The single strand of the suture over
which the graft was looped was passed through the femoral tunnel and out the lateral thigh.
This suture was used to pull the graft into the tunnel, and the graft-positioning tool was
advanced through the tibial tunnel until it reached the aperture of the femoral tunnel. At this
point, the AM and PL bundles were rotated by rotating the positioning tool to achieve the
desired positions of the 2 bundles before they were advanced into the femoral tunnel. The
keel of a sheath trial (DePuy Mitek) was placed between the strands to separate the 2
bundles within the single tunnel. After aligning the AM and PL bundles into their
anatomical orientation posteriorly in the femoral tunnel (Figure 1B), a femoral INTRAFIX
sheath (DePuy Mitek) was then carefully inserted into the tunnel without altering the
position of the 2 bundles. The graft was then secured by driving a femoral INTRAFIX screw
into the sheath that was inserted previously. This femoral INTRA-FIX system places the
graft posteriorly along the posterior border of the lateral femoral condyle. After the graft is
secured in the femoral tunnel, the knee was fully extended by the robotic testing system. At
this position, the tibial tunnel fixation was achieved by the tibial INTRAFIX system with the
AM and PL bundles placed in 2 opposite quadrants of the sheath at their anatomical
insertion sites on the tibial plateau. A 40-N graft tension was applied while the graft was
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

secured in the tibial tunnel by an interference screw at full extension. The arthrotomy and
skin incisions were then repaired by sutures, and kinematics of the anatomical single-tunnel
ACL-reconstructed knee were determined using the same protocol as described above.

Data Analysis
For each specimen in this study, kinematic responses to the 3 external loads were measured
under the 4 different knee conditions (ACL intact, ACL deficient, single-bundle ACL
reconstructed, and anatomical single-tunnel double-bundle ACL reconstructed). A 1-way
repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to detect statistically significant differences
in the kinematic responses of the knee under the 4 different knee conditions. When
significant differences were found, post hoc comparisons were made using the Student
Newman-Keuls test. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < .05. The
statistical analysis was performed in STATISTICA (StatSoft, Inc, Tulsa, Oklahoma).

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 5

RESULTS
Kinematic Responses to an Anterior Tibial Load of 134 N
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

An anterior tibial load of 134 N induced an anterior tibial translation at all selected flexion
angles ranging from 4.8 ± 1.4 mm at 0° to 7.9 ± 2.7 mm at 30° of flexion in the ACL-intact
knee (Table 1). After the resection of the ACL, anterior tibial translations significantly
increased at all selected flexion angles compared with those of the ACL-intact knee (P < .
05). Both the single-bundle and anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstructions significantly
reduced these increased anterior tibial translations of the ACL-deficient knee at all selected
flexion angles (P < .05). However, the anterior tibial translations after single-bundle ACL
reconstruction were significantly greater than those of the ACL-intact knee at all selected
flexion angles (P < .05). On the contrary, the anterior tibial translations after the anatomical
single-tunnel ACL reconstruction were not significantly different compared with the intact
knee from 0° to 60° of flexion (P > .05). Significant differences in the anterior tibial
translations of the ACL-intact knee and anatomical single-tunnel ACL-reconstructed knee
were observed at 90° of flexion with a mean difference of 1.9 mm (P < .05).

Application of anterior tibial load significantly shifted the ACL-deficient tibia medially
compared with the ACL-intact knee at 0°, 15°, 30°, and 60° of flexion (P < .05) (Table 2).
The mean maximum ACL-deficient knee tibial medial shift of 2.7 mm occurred at 30° of
flexion. The increased medial shifts were restored to the ACL-intact knee level by both
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

reconstruction techniques at all selected flexion angles (P > .05).

Kinematic Responses to the Action of Simulated Quadriceps Load of 400 N

Simulated quadriceps load increased the anterior tibial translation of the ACL-intact knee at
all selected flexion angles with a maximum anterior tibial translation of 5.2 ± 3.3 mm at 30°
of flexion (Table 1). The ACL deficiency further increased these anterior tibial translations
significantly at 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion (P < .05). Significant differences in the anterior
tibial translations of the single-bundle ACL-reconstructed knee and ACL-intact knee were
observed at 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion (P < .05). In contrast, no significant differences were
observed between the anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction and the ACL-intact knee
in terms of the anterior tibial transition at 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion (P > .05). No
significant differences were found between all 4 knee conditions at 60° and 90° of flexion (P
> .05).

Anterior cruciate ligament deficiency significantly increased the mean medial tibial
translation (Table 2) compared with that of the ACL-intact knee at 0°, 15°, and 30° of
flexion (P < .05). Both ACL reconstruction techniques were capable of reducing these
increased medial tibial shifts of the ACL-deficient knee close to that of the ACL-intact knee
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

level (P > .05). Under the action of simulated quadriceps load, the tibia of the ACL-intact
knee internally rotated at all selected flexion angles. The mean internal tibial rotations
(Table 3) after both ACL reconstructions were lower than that of the ACL-intact knee with
no significant differences between these 3 knee conditions at 0° and 30° of flexion (P > .05).

Kinematic Responses to Combined Tibial Torques of 5 Nm of Internal Torque and 10 N·m

of Valgus Torque
Under the combined tibial torques, anterior tibial translations of the ACL-intact knee were
0.1 ± 2.1 mm at 0° of flexion and 2.1 ± 4.3 mm at 30° of flexion (Table 1). Significant
increases in the mean anterior tibial translations at 0° and 30° of flexion were observed due
to ACL deficiency compared with that of the ACL-intact knee (P < .05). The anterior tibial
translation after the single-bundle ACL reconstruction was significantly higher than that of
the ACL-intact knee at 0° of flexion (P < .05). In contrast, no significant differences were

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 6

found in the anterior tibial translations of the anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction
and the ACL-intact knee at 0° and 30° of flexion (P > .05).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The ACL deficiency significantly increased the mean medial tibial translation (Table 2) at 0°
and 30° of flexion compared with that of the ACL-intact knee (P < .05). These increased
medial tibial translations were closely restored to ACL-intact knee level by both
reconstruction techniques at 0° of flexion (P > .05). Although there was a significant
difference in the medial tibial translation between the single-bundle ACL reconstruction and
the ACL-intact knee, no significant difference was found between anatomical single-tunnel
ACL reconstruction and the ACL-intact knee at 30° of flexion. The ACL deficiency
increased the internal tibial rotations at 0° and 30° of flexion compared with that of the
ACL-intact knee (Table 3). These increased internal tibial rotations were restored to the
ACL-intact knee level by both ACL reconstructions at 0° and 30° of flexion (P > .05).

DISCUSSION
In the current study, an anatomical ACL reconstruction using a single tibial and femoral
tunnel in which the graft is placed posteriorly along the contour of the posterior border of
the lateral femoral condyle to mimic the ACL insertion geometry was found to more closely
restore the increased anterior tibial translations of the ACL-deficient knee to the ACL-intact
knee level than did a conventional single-bundle ACL reconstruction under the 3 external
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

loading conditions. Both ACL reconstruction techniques could sufficiently reduce the
increased medial tibial translations of the ACL-deficient knee to the ACL-intact knee level
under anterior tibial load and simulated quadriceps load. However, both reconstructions
overcorrected the internal tibial rotations under the simulated quadriceps load. These data
partially support our initial hypothesis that a single-tunnel double-bundle ACL
reconstruction with anatomical placement of hamstring tendon graft can more closely restore
the intact knee kinematics than can a conventional single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

In our study, we observed that ACL deficiency not only increases the anterior tibial
translation but also significantly increases the medial tibial translations compared with that
of the ACL-intact knee under the 3 external loading conditions. The increased anterior and
medial tibial translations of the ACL-deficient knee are consistent with the observations of
other studies.10,18 These findings reiterate the importance of restoring the 6 degrees of
freedom kinematics of the normal knee after an ACL reconstruction, which could potentially
prevent abnormal articular cartilage contact patterns. Our data showed that both
reconstruction techniques were capable of restoring the normal medial tibial translations
under anterior tibial load and simulated quadriceps load.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

In vitro studies have investigated the efficacy of single-bundle ACL reconstruction under
various loading conditions10,34,35 Similar to our findings, these studies have concluded that
a single-bundle ACL reconstruction can restore the anterior tibial translation to a clinically
satisfactory level but not to the ACL-intact knee level. To improve knee joint stability,
especially the rotational stability, some authors have proposed to reconstruct both functional
bundles of the ACL by using 2 independent tunnels for each of the bundles. Yagi et al35
reported that a double-bundle ACL reconstruction was capable of significantly reducing the
increased anterior tibial translations of the ACL-deficient knee but could not restore them to
the intact-knee level at 0° and 30° of flexion under an anterior tibial load of 134 N. In
another study using a robotic testing system, Yamamoto et al36 found no significant
differences in the anterior tibial translations of ACL-intact and double-bundle ACL-
reconstructed knees under an anterior tibial load. More recently, Markolf et al22
demonstrated that a double-bundle ACL reconstruction significantly overconstrained the
anterior tibial translations compared with the ACL-intact knee from 30° to 90° of flexion. In

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 7

our study, the anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction sufficiently restored the ACL-
intact knee anterior stability under the anterior tibial load and simulated quadriceps load.
Similar results were observed in another study that evaluated the efficacy of a single-tunnel
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique in restoring normal knee kinematics.10 Based

on our data, the normal anterior stability of the knee joint can be efficiently restored by an
anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction.

Combined valgus–internal rotational torques have been used to evaluate the efficacy of ACL
reconstructions to resist rotational loads. Yagi et al35 found that a double-bundle ACL
reconstruction could not restore the anterior tibial translations close to the ACL-intact level
under combined valgus–internal rotational torques at 15° and 30° of flexion. However,
Yamamoto et al36 reported that the anterior tibial translations of the ACL-intact knee under
combined valgus–internal rotational torques were closely restored by the double-bundle
ACL reconstruction at 15° and 30° of flexion. In our study, no significant differences in the
anterior tibial translations of the intact knee and anatomical single-tunnel ACL-
reconstructed knee were observed at 0° and 30° of flexion under the combined valgus–
internal rotational torques. Although a significant difference in the anterior tibial translation
between the ACL-intact knee and single-bundle ACL-reconstructed knee was found at 0° of
flexion, the difference between the 2 groups was ≈1 mm, which may not be detectable in a
clinical setting. These results demonstrate that an anatomical single-tunnel ACL
reconstruction can sufficiently resist combined rotational loads and could be an efficient
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

alternative to both single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstructions to restore the

rotational stability of the knee joint.

Few studies have investigated the internal-external tibial rotation after ACL reconstruction
under physiological loading condition.10,38 Our data demonstrated that both the single-
bundle and anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction resulted in a lower internal tibial
rotation compared with that of the ACL-intact knee under simulated quadriceps load.
Similar observations of decreased internal tibial rotation after ACL reconstruction have been
reported in various studies.10,25,26,32,38 Cartilage-to-cartilage contact in a normal
tibiofemoral joint is reported to occur at regions of thicker cartilage layers. A shift in the
cartilage-to-cartilage contact regions to areas of thinner cartilage layers due to altered knee
kinematics may have some undesirable consequences. Furthermore, a decrease in internal
rotation is reported to increase the contact pressure in the patellofemoral joint, which may
lead to complications in this joint17 Therefore, further improvements to the current ACL
reconstruction techniques are warranted to restore the normal tibial rotation under
physiological loading.

The anatomical ACL reconstruction of this study used a single tibial and femoral tunnel
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

similar to some previously proposed anatomical ACL reconstruction techniques that use a
tibialis anterior tendon, hamstrings tendon, or bone–patellar tendon–bone graft.7,10,30,31 A
recent study by Gadikota et al10 reported that a single-tunnel double-bundle ACL
reconstruction technique using hamstring tendon graft closely restored the anterior laxity to
the intact-knee level at low flexion angles (≤30°) but overconstrained the knee joint at high
flexion angles (>60°) under the anterior tibial load and at 0° and 30° of flexion under
combined torques. The single-tunnel double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique used an
AperFix femoral implant (Cayenne Medical, Scotts-dale, Arizona) that separates the
hamstring tendon graft into 2 bundles in a single tunnel. In the present study, the INTRAFIX
system facilitates the fixation of a hamstring tendon graft posteriorly along the contour of
the posterior border of the lateral femoral condyle, restoring the anatomical joint line
attachment at the native ACL footprint and the 2 bundles of the ACL. Our data showed that
an anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction can restore the normal anterior laxity at
time zero without overconstraining the joint at high flexion angles. Such techniques could be

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 8

easily adopted by surgeons who currently practice single-bundle ACL reconstruction to

achieve a more anatomical reconstruction of the ACL. However, as with other ACL
reconstruction techniques, this technique needs to be further improved to restore normal
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

knee internal tibial rotations under physiological loads. Different femoral and tibial tunnel
positions should be investigated to obtain the most optimal anatomical single-tunnel ACL
reconstruction.

This current cadaveric biomechanical study has several limitations that need to be addressed.
A commonly used femoral tunnel position placed at 10:30/1:30 position was used in this
study, and hence it does not evaluate the effect of various tunnel locations. The scope of this
study was limited to using hamstring tendon graft for both reconstruction techniques.
Therefore, further investigation is required to compare the anatomical single-tunnel ACL
reconstruction using hamstring tendon graft to single-bundle ACL reconstructions using
other graft sources such as a bone–patellar tendon–bone graft or a quadriceps tendon graft.
Furthermore, randomization of the groups for reusing the graft was not performed because
the anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction required a larger tunnel than that used for
single-bundle ACL reconstruction. The 2 distinct features of the anatomical single-tunnel
ACL reconstruction compared with the single-bundle ACL reconstruction are (1) aperture
fixation and (2) anatomical reconstruction of both bundles of the ACL. However, from the
results of this study, we cannot estimate how much each of these 2 differences contributed to
the observed differences in the kinematic results between the 2 reconstruction techniques.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Similar to the observations of this study, few biomechanical studies demonstrated that an
aperture fixation can provide a more stable joint than that of a peripheral
fixation12,14However, both fixation techniques have been reported to provide similar clinical
outcomes.3,6,9,20Therefore, the true efficacy of this anatomical reconstruction needs to be
evaluated by a clinical follow-up study. Nevertheless, the repeated-measures design of this
study facilitated a controlled measurement of knee kinematics under various knee conditions
using the same specimen.

In conclusion, the current study has shown that at time zero, a single-tunnel double-bundle
ACL reconstruction with anatomical placement of hamstring tendon graft can provide a
satisfactory anterior stability compared with a single-bundle ACL reconstruction under
anterior tibial load, simulated quadriceps load, and combined tibial torques. Both
reconstruction techniques can restore the medial-lateral stability under the 3 external loads
but overcorrected the internal tibial rotations under the action of simulated quadriceps loads.
Further improvements to the current ACL reconstruction techniques are needed to restore
normal tibial rotation. Future investigations must evaluate if such an advantage in terms of
the stability provided by the anatomical single-tunnel ACL reconstruction carries over to a
long-term follow-up and prevents degenerative changes.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Institutes of Health (R01AR055612) and DePuy
Mitek, Raynham, Massachusetts.

REFERENCES
1. Aglietti P, Buzzi R, D’Andria S, Zaccherotti G. Long-term study of anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction for chronic instability using the central one-third patellar tendon and a lateral
extraarticular tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 1992; 20(1):38–45. [PubMed: 1554072]
2. Aglietti P, Zaccherotti G, Simeone AJ, Buzzi R. Anatomic versus non-anatomic tibial fixation in
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone–patellar tendon-bone graft. Knee Surg Sports
Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998; 6(suppl 1):S43–S48. [PubMed: 9608463]

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 9

3. Barber FA, Spruill B, Sheluga M. The effect of outlet fixation on tunnel widening. Arthroscopy.
2003; 19(5):485–492. [PubMed: 12724677]
4. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Abate JA, Fleming BC, Nichols CE. Treatment of anterior cruciate
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

ligament injuries, part I. Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33(10):1579–1602. [PubMed: 16199611]

5. Brucker PU, Lorenz S, Imhoff AB. Aperture fixation in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament
double-bundle reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2006; 22(11):1250, e1251–e1256. [PubMed: 17084308]
6. Buelow JU, Siebold R, Ellermann A. A prospective evaluation of tunnel enlargement in anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings: extracortical versus anatomical fixation. Knee
Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002; 10(2):80–85. [PubMed: 11914764]
7. Caborn DN, Chang HC. Single femoral socket double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction using tibialis anterior tendon: description of a new technique. Arthroscopy. 2005;
21(10):1273. [PubMed: 16226664]
8. Crawford C, Nyland J, Landes S, et al. Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction: a literature
review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15(8):946–964. discussion 945. [PubMed:
17534599]
9. Fauno P, Kaalund S. Tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is
influenced by the type of graft fixation used: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2005;
21(11):1337–1341. [PubMed: 16325084]
10. Gadikota HR, Seon JK, Kozanek M, et al. Biomechanical comparison of single-tunnel–double-
bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2009;
37:962–969. [PubMed: 19261901]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

11. Georgoulis AD, Ristanis S, Chouliaras V, Moraiti C, Stergiou N. Tibial rotation is not restored
after ACL reconstruction with a hamstring graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 454:89–94.
[PubMed: 17075383]
12. Grover D, Thompson D, Hull ML, Howell SM. Empirical relationship between lengthening an
anterior cruciate ligament graft and increases in knee anterior laxity: a human cadaveric study. J
Bio-mech Eng. 2006; 128(6):969–972.
13. Ho JY, Gardiner A, Shah V, Steiner ME. Equal kinematics between central anatomic single-bundle
and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy. 2009; 25(5):464–472.
[PubMed: 19409303]
14. Ishibashi Y, Rudy TW, Livesay GA, Stone JD, Fu FH, Woo SL. The effect of anterior cruciate
ligament graft fixation site at the tibia on knee stability: evaluation using a robotic testing system.
Arthroscopy. 1997; 13(2):177–182. [PubMed: 9127075]
15. Jomha NM, Borton DC, Clingeleffer AJ, Pinczewski LA. Long-term osteoarthritic changes in
anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; 358:188–193.
[PubMed: 9973991]
16. Lewis PB, Parameswaran AD, Rue JP, Bach BR Jr. Systematic review of single-bundle anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes: a baseline assessment for consideration of double-
bundle techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36(10):2028–2036. [PubMed: 18757764]
17. Li G, DeFrate LE, Zayontz S, Park SE, Gill TJ. The effect of tibiofe-moral joint kinematics on
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

patellofemoral contact pressures under simulated muscle loads. J Orthop Res. 2004; 22(4):801–
806. [PubMed: 15183437]
18. Li G, Papannagari R, DeFrate LE, Yoo JD, Park SE, Gill TJ. The effects of ACL deficiency on
mediolateral translation and varus-valgus rotation. Acta Orthop. 2007; 78(3):355–360. [PubMed:
17611849]
19. Li G, Park SE, DeFrate LE, et al. The cartilage thickness distribution in the tibiofemoral joint and
its correlation with cartilage-to-cartilage contact. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005; 20(7):736–
744.
20. Ma CB, Francis K, Towers J, Irrgang J, Fu FH, Harner CH. Hamstring anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction: a comparison of bioab-sorbable interference screw and EndoButton-post fixation.
Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(2):122–128. [PubMed: 14760343]
21. Mae T, Shino K, Miyama T, et al. Single- versus two-femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction technique: biomechanical analysis using a robotic simulator. Arthroscopy. 2001;
17(7):708–716. [PubMed: 11536089]

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 10

22. Markolf KL, Park S, Jackson SR, McAllister DR. Anterior-posterior and rotatory stability of single
and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(1):
107–118. [PubMed: 19122085]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

23. Marx RG, Jones EC, Angel M, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Beliefs and attitudes of members of
the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate
ligament injury. Arthroscopy. 2003; 19(7):762–770. [PubMed: 12966385]
24. Meredick RB, Vance KJ, Appleby D, Lubowitz JH. Outcome of single-bundle versus double-
bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2008;
36(7):1414–1421. [PubMed: 18508977]
25. Nordt WEIII, Lotfi P, Plotkin E, Williamson B. The in vivo assessment of tibial motion in the
transverse plane in anterior cruciate ligament–reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27(5):
611–616. [PubMed: 10496578]
26. Papannagari R, Gill TJ, Defrate LE, Moses JM, Petruska AJ, Li G. In vivo kinematics of the knee
after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and functional evaluation. Am J Sports
Med. 2006; 34(12):2006–2012. [PubMed: 16885514]
27. Pederzini L, Adriani E, Botticella C, Tosi M. Technical note: double tibial tunnel using quadriceps
tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2000; 16(5):E9. [PubMed:
10882460]
28. Petersen W, Tretow H, Weimann A, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of two techniques for double-
bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one tibial tunnel versus two tibial tunnels. Am J
Sports Med. 2007; 35(2):228–234. [PubMed: 17099239]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

29. Ristanis S, Stergiou N, Patras K, Tsepis E, Moraiti C, Georgoulis AD. Follow-up evaluation 2
years after ACL reconstruction with bone–patellar tendon-bone graft shows that excessive tibial
rotation persists. Clin J Sport Med. 2006; 16(2):111–116. [PubMed: 16603879]
30. Shino K, Nakata K, Nakamura N, et al. Rectangular tunnel double-bundle anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction with bone–patellar tendonbone graft to mimic natural fiber arrangement.
Arthroscopy. 2008; 24(10):1178–1183. [PubMed: 19028171]
31. Takeuchi R, Saito T, Mituhashi S, Suzuki E, Yamada I, Koshino T. Double-bundle anatomic
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-hamstring-bone composite graft.
Arthroscopy. 2002; 18(5):550–555. [PubMed: 11987070]
32. Tashman S, Collon D, Anderson K, Kolowich P, Anderst W. Abnormal rotational knee motion
during running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004; 32(4):975–
983. [PubMed: 15150046]
33. Williams RJ III, Hyman J, Petrigliano F, Rozental T, Wickiewicz TL. Anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction with a four-strand hamstring tendon autograft: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg
Am. 2005; 87 suppl 1(pt 1):51–66. [PubMed: 15743847]
34. Woo SL, Kanamori A, Zeminski J, Yagi M, Papageorgiou C, Fu FH. The effectiveness of
reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstrings and patellar tendon: a cadaveric
study comparing anterior tibial and rotational loads. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84(6):907–914.
[PubMed: 12063323]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

35. Yagi M, Wong EK, Kanamori A, Debski RE, Fu FH, Woo SL. Biome-chanical analysis of an
anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2002; 30(5):660–666.
[PubMed: 12238998]
36. Yamamoto Y, Hsu WH, Woo SL, Van Scyoc AH, Takakura Y, Debski RE. Knee stability and
graft function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of a lateral and an
anatomical femoral tunnel placement. Am J Sports Med. 2004; 32(8):1825–1832. [PubMed:
15572308]
37. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H. Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-
bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts:
comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy. 2006; 22(3):240–251. [PubMed:
16517306]
38. Yoo JD, Papannagari R, Park SE, DeFrate LE, Gill TH, Li G. The effect of anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction on knee joint kinematics under simulated muscle loads. Am J Sports Med.
2005; 33(2):240–246. [PubMed: 15701610]

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 Gadikota et al. Page 11
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Single-bundle (A) and anatomical single-tunnel (B) ACL reconstructions. AMB,
anteromedial bundle; PLB, pos-terolateral bundle.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

TABLE 1
Anterior (†)/Posterior (−) Tibial Translation (mean ± SD, mm) Under 3 External Loading Conditions

Flexion Single-Bundle ACL Anatomical ACL

Loading Condition Angle, deg ACL Intact ACL Deficient Reconstruction Reconstruction
Gadikota et al.

Anterior tibial load 0 4.8 ± 1.4 12.8 ± 1.9a1 7.1 ± 1.0a6,b1 5.0 ± 1.0b6,c1
15 7.1 ± 2.7 17.9 ± 4.4a2 10.2 ± 1.8a7,b2 8.3 ± 1.7b7,c2
30 7.9 ± 2.7 18.3 ± 5.3a3 11.1 ± 2.0a8,b3 9.5 ± 1.9b8
60 6.8 ± 3.0 13.4 ± 5.0a4 9.5 ± 2.5a9,b4 8.6 ± 2.3b9
90 6.3 ± 3.1 10.9 ± 3.3a5 8.4 ± 2.2a10,b55 8.1 ± 2.2a11,b1010
Simulated quadriceps load 0 2.5 ± 1.8 5.4 ± 2.6a12 4.0 ± 1.3a15,b11 2.2 ± 1.3b14,c3
15 4.7 ± 3.4 10.5 ± 5.0a13 7.0 ± 2.6a16,b12 5.2 ± 2.0b15
30 5.2 ± 3.3 9.4 ± 4.2a14 7.4 ± 2.9a17,b13 5.9 ± 2.3b16
60 2.5 ± 1.7 2.5 ± 2.6 2.6 ± 2.6 1.9 ± 2.0
90 0.3 ± 0.5 0.3 ± 0.8 0.4 ± 0.9 0.1 ± 0.4
Combined tibial torques 0 0.1 6± 2.1 2.7 ± 2.3a18 1.1 ± 1.1a20,b17 −0.5 ± 1.1b18,c4
30 2.1 ± 4.3 4.5 ± 4.7a19 3.6 ± 3.8 2.7 ± 3.9b19

a
a1–5, a13: P ═ .0002; a6: P ═ .0017; a7: P ═ .0050; a8: P ═ .0115; a9: P ═ .0341; a10: P ═ .0326; a11:P ═ .0275; a12: P ═ .0005; a14: P ═ .0003; a15: P ═ .0236; a16: P ═ .0435; a17: P ═ .
0260; a18: P ═ .0001; a19: P ═ .0052; a20: P ═ .0185 (significantly different from ACL-intact knee).
b
b1-b3, b18: P ═ .0002; b4: P ═.0010; b5: P ═ .0047; b6-b8, b15: P ═ .0001; b9, b14: P ═ .0004; b10: P ═ .0054; b11: P ═ .0435; b12: P ═ .0013; b13: P ═ .0226; b16: P ═ .0008; b17: P ═ .
0016; b19: P ═ .0230 (significantly different from ACL-deficient knee).
c
c1: P ═ .0019; c2: P ═ .0349; c3: P ═ .0205; c4: P ═ .0035 (significantly different from single-bundle ACL reconstruction).

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

Page 12
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

TABLE 2
Medial (1)/Lateral(−) Tibial Translation (mean ± SD, mm) Under 3 External Loading Conditions

Flexion Single-Bundle ACL Anatomical ACL

Loading Condition Angle, deg ACL Intact ACL Deficient Reconstruction Reconstruction
Gadikota et al.

Anterior tibial load 0 −0.5 ± 0.6 0.6 ± 2.0a1 −0.5 ± 1.1b1 −0.7 ± 1.0b5
15 −0.4 ± 0.9 2.1 ± 3.2a22 −0.4 ± 1.9b2 −0.6 ± 1.8b6
30 −0.1 ± 1.3 2.7 ± 3.5a3 0.1 ± 2.5b3 −0.1 ± 2.3b7
60 1.0 ± 1.0 2.6 ± 3.2a4 1.2 ± 2.3b4 1.1 ± 2.1b8
90 1.4 ± 1.6 2.6 ± 3.4a5 1.3 ± 2.3 1.3 ± 2.2

Simulated quadriceps load 0 0.2 ± 0.4 1.0 ± 1.1a6 0.6 6 0.7 0.3 ± 0.6b10
15 1.0 ± 1.0 2.1 ± 1.9a7 1.2 ± 1.5.b9 0.9 ± 1.2b11
30 1.1 ± 1.1 2.0 ± 2.2a8 1.4 ± 1.6 1.2 ± 1.3b12
60 0.9 ± 0.7 0.9 ± 1.0 0.9 ± 0.8 0.7 ± 0.7
90 0.4 ± 0.4 0.3 ± 0.7 0.3 ± 0.6 0.3 ± 0.5
Combined tibial torques 0 2.2 ± 1.2 4.4 ± 1.8a9 2.9 ± 1.3b13 2.3 ± 1.2b14
30 3.9 ± 1.8 5.5 ± 2.4a10 4.8 ± 1.9a11 4.5 ± 1.6b15

a
a1: P ═ .0345; a2: P ═ .0014; a3: P ═ .0030; a4: P ═ .0423; a5: P ═ .0505; a6: P ═ .0089; a7: P ═ .0021; a8: P ═ .0432; a9: P ═ .0002; a10: P ═ .0013; a11: P ═ .0489 (significantly different
from ACL-intact knee).
b
b1: P ═ .0194; b2: P ═ .0035; b3: P ═ .0012; b4: P ═ .0212; b5: P ═ .0302; b6: P ═ .0026; b7: P ═ .0017; b8: P ═ .0363; b9: P ═ .0040; b10: P ═ .0054; b11: P ═ .0022; b12: P ═ .0389; b13:
P ═ .0006; b14: P ═ .0001; b15: P ═ .0209 (significantly different from ACL-deficient knee).

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

Page 13
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

TABLE 3
Internal (1)/ External (−) Tibial Rotation (mean ± SD, deg) Under 3 External Loading Conditions

Flexion Single-Bundle ACL Anatomical ACL

Loading Condition Angle, deg ACL Intact ACL Deficient Reconstruction Reconstruction
Gadikota et al.

Anterior tibial load 0 −0.1 ± 5.5 0.2 ± 3.7 −2.1 ± 6.5 −2.6 ± 6.1
15 1.9 ± 6.6 1.7 ± 4.5 −0.5 ± 8.7 −1.3 ± 9.1
30 1.0 ± 8.3 2.3 ± 4.9 0.7 ± 8.8 0.1 ± 9.3
60 3.1 ± 5.4 3.3 ± 4.5 2.7 ± 4.3 1.7 ± 5.9
90 3.7 ± 4.5 3.2 ± 4.5 2.4 ± 3.3 1.5 ± 3.7
Simulated quadriceps load 0 4.2 ± 2.7 3.3 ± 3.6 2.7 ± 3.5 2.7 ± 3.2
15 8.9 ± 2.8 6.9 ± 3.4 5.7 ± 4.2a1 5.7 ± 4.0a2
30 8.5 ± 4.0 7.3 ± 4.0 5.9 ± 4.9 6.0 ± 4.9
60 4.3 ± 2.6 3.6 ± 3.3 3.7 ± 3.4 3.3 ± 3.2
90 0.8 ± 0.9 1.0 ± 1.4 0.9 ± 1.7 0.8 ± 1.4
Combined tibial torques 0 11.9 ± 3.2 13.7 ± 3.3a3 12.2 ± 3.6b1 11.1 ± 3.8b2
30 20.6 ± 4.3 21.1 ± 3.9 20.3 ± 4.2 20.4 ± 4.0

a
a1: P ═ .0209; a2: P ═ .0125; a3: P ═ .0263 (significantly different from ACL-intact knee).
b
b1: P ═ .0292; b2: P ═ .0025 (significantly different from ACL-deficient knee).

Am J Sports Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 12.

Page 14