Posterior Cruciate Ligament: Focus on Conflicting Issues.
10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.256
- Author:
Yong Seuk LEE
1
;
Young Bok JUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gachon University School of Medicine, Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Knee;
Posterior cruciate ligament;
Biomechanics;
Outcome;
Rehabilitation
- MeSH:
Biomechanical Phenomena;
Humans;
Knee Joint/*surgery;
Orthopedic Procedures/*methods;
Posterior Cruciate Ligament/*surgery;
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/*methods;
Treatment Outcome
- From:Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery
2013;5(4):256-262
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
There is little consensus on how to optimally reconstruct the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and the natural history of injured PCL is also unclear. The graft material (autograft vs. allograft), the type of tibial fixation (tibial inlay vs. transtibial tunnel), the femoral tunnel position within the femoral footprint (isometric, central, or eccentric), and the number of bundles in the reconstruction (1 bundle vs. 2 bundles) are among the many decisions that a surgeon must make in a PCL reconstruction. In addition, there is a paucity of information on rehabilitation after reconstruction of the PCL and posterolateral structures. This article focused on the conflicting issues regarding the PCL, and the scientific rationales behind some critical points are discussed.
