Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With a Full Tibial Tunnel

PurposeThe purpose of this investigation was to compare the clinical effectiveness of full-tunnel anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery with all-inside ACL reconstruction.MethodsAfter statistical power analysis was performed and institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained, 150 patients having ACL reconstruction were prospectively randomized to an all-inside or full–tibial tunnel technique. Outcome (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] Knee Examination Form, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Society Score [KSS], Short Form 12 [SF-12] score, femoral or tibial tunnel or socket widening, narcotic consumption, and visual analog scale [VAS] pain score compared with baseline) was measured and recorded preoperatively and at various postoperative time points with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.ResultsThere were no differences between groups with regard to IKDC Knee Examination Form, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, KSS score, SF-12 score, or femoral socket or tibial tunnel or socket widening, or narcotic consumption. The VAS pain score compared with baseline was significantly lower for the all-inside technique on day 1, on day 7, at 1.5 weeks, and at 24 months.ConclusionsThe null hypothesis (no difference between all-inside ACL reconstruction and ACL reconstruction with a full tibial tunnel) is supported for IKDC scores, KSS score, SF-12 score, narcotic consumption, and tibial and femoral widening, whereas all-inside ACL reconstruction results in a lower VAS pain score compared with baseline.Level of EvidenceLevel I, randomized controlled clinical trial with greater than 80% patient follow-up 2 years postoperatively.