Remnant Preservation is Helpful to Obtain Good Clinical Results in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Comparison of Clinical Results of Three Techniques.
10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.278
- Author:
Sang Hak LEE
1
;
Young Bok JUNG
;
Han Jun LEE
;
Ho Joong JUNG
;
Seong Hwan KIM
Author Information
1. Center for Joint Diseases and Rheumatism, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Posterior cruciate ligament;
Posterolateral corner reconstruction;
Modified inlay;
Transtibial tunnel;
Double-bundle
- MeSH:
Adolescent;
Adult;
Female;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Orthopedic Procedures/*methods;
Posterior Cruciate Ligament/*injuries/*surgery;
Range of Motion, Articular;
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/*methods;
Retrospective Studies;
Treatment Outcome;
Young Adult
- From:Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery
2013;5(4):278-286
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical results of 3 posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques according to the time from injury to surgery and remnant PCL status and to evaluate the efficiency of each technique. METHODS: The records of 89 patients who underwent primary PCL reconstructions with a posterolateral corner sling were analyzed retrospectively. Thirty-four patients were treated by anterolateral bundle (ALB) reconstruction with preservation of the remnant PCL using a transtibial tunnel technique in the acute and subacute stages of injury (group 1). Forty patients were treated with remnant PCL tensioning and an ALB reconstruction using the modified inlay technique in the chronic stage (group 2), and fifteen patients were treated with double-bundle reconstruction using the modified inlay technique (group 3). The double-bundle reconstruction was performed if there was a very weak or no PCL remnant. RESULTS: The mean side-to-side differences in posterior tibial translation on the stress radiographs were reduced from 10.1 +/- 2.5 mm in group 1, 10.6 +/- 2.4 mm in group 2, and 12.8 +/- 3.2 mm in group 3 preoperatively to 2.3 +/- 1.4 mm in group 1, 2.3 +/- 1.5 mm in group 2, and 4.0 +/- 2.5 mm in group 3 at the last follow-up (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Statistical analyses revealed that group 1 and group 2 were similar in terms of side-to-side difference changes in posterior tibial translation on the stress radiographs; however, group 3 was inferior to group 1 and group 2 at the last follow-up (p = 0.022). The clinical results were not significantly different among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent posterior stability and good clinical results were achieved with ALB reconstruction preserving the injured remnant PCL in the acute and subacute stages and remnant PCL tensioning with ALB reconstruction in the chronic stage. The PCL injuries could be surgically corrected with different techniques depending on both the remnant PCL status and the interval between the knee trauma and operation.
