Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term outcomes following single-bundle transtibial arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury has a reported incidence of 3–20 %. PCL reconstruction is aimed at reducing onset of premature articular degeneration and improving function. Numerous operative techniques have been described with varying degrees of result consistency.

Methods

We evaluated 15 patients treated for isolated primary posterior cruciate ligament injury with a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (range one to nine). Post-reconstruction clinical assessment included the Lysholm and Tegner knee scoring scale, international knee documentation committee (IKDC) ligament evaluation, and KT2000 arthrometer assessment.

Results

On the Lysholm knee score 11 patients (73 %) had excellent results, three patients (20 %) had good results and one patient (7 %) had a poor result. On the Tegner activity score the majority of patients scored 7–8 with a return to high level sports. At the final follow-up, the post-reconstruction IKDC score was normal or nearly normal (A and B) in 14 (93 %) patients, and abnormal (C) in one (7 %) patient. According to KT-2000 arthrometer measurements at final follow-up review, 11 patients (73 %) were rated as normal (A, 0–2 mm), and four patients (27 %) as nearly normal (B, 3–5 mm). These results were independent of age, mechanism of injury, time elapsed to surgical reconstruction, and length of follow-up.

Conclusions

Despite being a technically demanding procedure, the outcomes reported in this study show that single bundle transtibial arthroscopic PCL repair using four strands hamstring autograft provides satisfactory and consistent functional outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schulz MS, Russe K, Weiler A, Eichhorn HJ, Strobel MJ (2003) Epidemiology of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123(4):186–191

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wind WM Jr, Bergfield JA, Parker RD (2004) Evaluation and treatment of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. revisited. Am J Sports Med 32(7):1765–1775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Richter M, Bosch U, Wipermann B, Hofmann A, Krettek C (2002) Comparison of surgical repair or reconstruction of the cruciate ligaments versus nonsurgical treatment in patients with traumatic knee dislocations. Am J Sports Med 30(5):718–727

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim SJ, Park IS, CHeon YM, Ryu SW (2004) Double bundle technique: endoscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using tibialis posterior allograft. Arthroscopy 20(10):1090–1094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim YM, Lee CA, Matava MJ (2011) Clinical results of arthroscopic single bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 39:425–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hammoud S, Reinhardt KR, Marx RG (2010) Outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament treatment: a review of the evidence. Sports Med Arthrosc 18(4):280–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ (2010) Current concepts review: the posterior cruciate ligament. J Knee Surg 23(2):61–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim SJ, Jung M, Moon HK, Kim SG, Chun YM (2011) Anterolateral transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anatomical reconstruction of posterolateral corner insufficiency: comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction over a 2- to 6-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 39(3):481–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Höher J, Scheffler S, Weiler A (2003) Graft choice and graft fixation in PCL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11(5):297–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. May JH, Gillette BP, Morgan JA, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, Levy BA (2010) Transtibial versus inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based systematic review. J Knee Surg 23(2):73–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang D, Jones MH, Khair MM, Miniaci A (2010) Patient-reported outcome measures for the knee. J Knee Surg 23(3):137–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang TW, Wang CJ, Weng LH, Chan YS (2003) Reducing the "killer turn" in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 19(7):712–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lim HC, Bae JH, Wang JH, Yang JH, Seok CW, Kim HJ, Kim SJ (2010) Double-bundle PCL reconstruction using tibial double cross-pin fixation. Knee Surg Traumatol Arthrosc 18(1):117–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cooper DE, Stewart D (2004) Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle patella tendon graft with tibial inlay fixation: 2- to 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 32(2):346–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim HC, Bae JH, Wang JH, Bae TS, Kim CW, Hwang JH, Yoon JY (2009) The biomechanical performance of bone block and soft-tissue posterior cruciate ligament graft fixation with interference screw and cross-pin techniques. Arthroscopy 25(3):250–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang CJ, Chen HH, Chen HS, Huang TW (2002) Effects of knee position, graft tension, and mode of fixation in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric knee study. Arthroscopy 18(5):496–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fanelli GC (2008) Posterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation: how slow should we go? Arthroscopy 24(2):234–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No competing interests declared and no external funds received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK

    Tarek Boutefnouchet, Malek Bentayeb, Qutub Qadri & Salman Ali

  2. University Hospital Birmingham, New QEHB, Mindlesohn Way, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK

    Tarek Boutefnouchet

  3. The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Malek Bentayeb

  4. Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley West Midlands, DY1 2HQ, UK

    Qutub Qadri

  5. West Midlands Hospital, Halesowen West Midlands, B63 2AH, UK

    Salman Ali

  6. Apt 862 Sinope, 58 Sherborne Street, Birmingham, B16 8FT, UK

    Tarek Boutefnouchet

Authors
  1. Tarek Boutefnouchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malek Bentayeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qutub Qadri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salman Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarek Boutefnouchet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boutefnouchet, T., Bentayeb, M., Qadri, Q. et al. Long-term outcomes following single-bundle transtibial arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 337–343 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1609-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1609-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation