RT Journal
A1 Kim, Sung-Jae
A1 Kim, Tae-Eun
A1 Jo, Seung-Bae
A1 Kung, Yun-Pei
T1 Comparison of the Clinical Results of Three Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques
JF The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
JO The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
YR 2009
FD November 1
VO 91
IS 11
SP 2543
OP 2549
DO 10.2106/JBJS.H.01819
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01819
AB Background: Despite its technical complexity, arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament has biomechanical advantages over transtibial procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of arthroscopic tibial inlay single-bundle and double-bundle techniques with those of the conventional transtibial single-bundle technique.Methods: We evaluated twenty-nine patients treated with primary posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and followed for longer than two years. Eight patients were treated with a transtibial single-bundle procedure; eleven, with an arthroscopic inlay single-bundle procedure; and ten, with an arthroscopic inlay double-bundle procedure. An Achilles tendon allograft was used in all cases. Each patient was evaluated on the basis of the Lysholm knee score, the mean side-to-side difference in tibial translation as measured on Telos stress radiographs, and the side-to-side difference in the range of motion of the knee.Results: The mean side-to-side difference (and standard deviation) in posterior tibial translation differed significantly between the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle group (3.6 ± 1.43 mm) and the transtibial single-bundle group (5.6 ± 2.00 mm) (p = 0.023), although there was no significant difference between the arthroscopic inlay single-bundle group (4.7 ± 1.62 mm) and the transtibial group (p = 0.374). The mean range of motion and Lysholm scores were similar among the three groups.Conclusions: Despite its technical difficulty, the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle technique is our preferred method of reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament because it stabilizes posterior tibial translation better than do the other two methods.Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.