RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the ability of three different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques to normalize rotational knee stability 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Two of these techniques are so-called anatomic techniques. METHODS: Three different ACL reconstruction techniques were tested for their ability to normalize rotational knee stability in a prospective randomized study. Forty-seven ACL-deficient (ACLD) patients were randomized to transtibial single-bundle (SB), anatomic SB, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Three-dimensional motion analysis was performed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up to evaluate tibial rotation and rotational stiffness. Motion data were captured using an eight-camera motion analysis system. Tibial rotation was determined during walking, running, and a pivoting task. Other outcome parameters were KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and the subjective outcome scores KOOS and IKDC. RESULTS: Three-dimensional motion analysis demonstrated that the tibial internal rotation and the rotational stiffness did not differ between the ACL reconstruction techniques during walking, running, and pivoting at 1-year follow-up. Objective knee stability and subjective outcome scores did not differ between the reconstruction groups. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in rotational stability walking, running, and pivoting was seen between anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques at 1-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I.