Medic

wd

d

2

Hpc

H

tlelttmrhtawat

s(TiKtK(e

digpcd((atPawtwt

Hr

d

2

Dar

K

1

2

rybAos

uAaot

ktiwmbntif

rTrlife scores.

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.11.224

Abstracts / Journal of Science and

ork should investigate is similar results can be achieveduring landing tasks.

oi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.11.222

21

amstring tendon autograft does not protect theatellofemoral joint from osteoarthritis after anteriorruciate ligament reconstruction: 7 year follow-up

. Morris ∗, K. Crossley, M. Makdissi, C. Lai, B. Gabbe

University of Melbourne, Australia

Introduction: Early tibiofemoral joint (TFJ) osteoarthri-is (OA) frequently develops secondary to anterior cruciateigament reconstruction (ACLR). The few studies that havevaluated patellofemoral joint (PFJ) reported a high preva-ence of PFJ OA (∼46%) >7 years post surgery. Notably,hese studies only followed up people who had a patellarendon autograft, which is known to be associated with PFJ

orbidity. This study aimed to: (i) describe the prevalence ofadiographic PFJ and TFJ OA, 7 years after ACLR using aamstring tendon autograft (HT); (ii) compare OA symp-oms, anterior knee pain symptoms, ACLR outcome andctivity levels between people with PFJ OA and those whoere free of OA; and (iii) compare the range of knee motion

nd functional performance between people with PFJ OA andhose with no OA.

Methodology: 70 people with a HT ACLR from a singleurgeon 5–10 years previously were recruited and performed:i) standard radiographs (postero-anterior (PA) to grade theFJ, skyline to grade the PFJ); (ii) questionnaires includ-

ng the Knee Osteoarthrits Outcome Score (KOOS), Anteriornee Pain Scale (AKPS), Tegner Activity Scale, Interna-

ional Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjectivenee Form, International Physical Activity Questionnaire;

iii) range of knee movement and functional performancexamination.

Results: Of 70 participants, radiographic PFJ OA was evi-ent in 47% (33/70) and radiographic TFJ OA was evidentn 33% (23/70). In total, 48% (34/70) exhibited no radio-raphic evidence of either TFJ or PFJ OA. Of the 36 (51%)eople with radiographic OA, isolated PFJ OA was the mostommon distribution (41%), followed by tri-compartmentalistribution (31%), then lateral TFJ and PFJ distribution13%) combined medial TFJ and PFJ (8%) and isolated TFJ8%). Between-group comparisons revealed no differencesge, height, weight or activity level for people with PFJ OAhan those with no radiographic OA. People with radiographicFJ OA had significantly worse scores on the AKPS, IKDCnd most scales of the KOOS than those without OA. Thereas no difference in the range of knee extension between

hose with PFJ OA and those with no OA, but participants

ith PFJ OA performed significantly worse on functional

ests than those who were free of OA.

ine in Sport 14S (2011) e1–e119 e107

Conclusion: PFJ OA is relatively common ∼7 years afterT ACLR and is associated with worse symptoms and

educed functional performance.

oi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.11.223

22

ouble-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate lig-ment reconstruction—Is the double bundle techniqueeally better?

. Webster 1,∗, T. Whitehead 2, P. Seccombe 1

La Trobe University, AustraliaOrthoSport Victoria, Australia

Background: The traditional surgical treatment for ACLupture is single-bundle reconstruction. Over the past fewears there has however been a shift in interest toward double-undle reconstruction which more closely restores the nativeCL anatomy. This study examined the clinical outcomesf single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) ACL recon-truction procedures.

Methods: One hundred and forty two patients who hadndergone SB (n = 69) or DB (n = 73) primary hamstringCL reconstruction were evaluated at a minimum 12 monthsfter surgery. Evaluation included IKDC subjective andbjective ratings, SF-36, single assessment numerical evalua-ion, functional hop tests and anterior knee laxity (KT-1000).

Results: Significantly more patients in the DB group hadnee effusions and flexion and extension deficits comparedo the SB group. Whilst there was no difference in knee lax-ty between the groups, overall IKDC knee evaluation scoresere significantly better for the SB group as were limb sym-etry functional hop scores. For patient self-report outcomes,

oth IKDC subjective knee ratings and the single assessmentumerical evaluation were significantly better for patients inhe SB group. For the SF-36, the SB group also scored signif-cantly higher on a number of subscales including physicalunction and role physical.

Conclusions: These findings show that single bundle ACLeconstruction performs as well as a double bundle technique.he single bundle technique was associated with a greater

ange of knee motion, better function and higher quality of