Surgical Technique: Aperture Fixation in PCL Reconstruction: Applying Biomechanics to Surgery
- 475 Downloads
Biomechanical studies suggest reducing the effective graft length during transtibial posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction by augmenting the distal tibial fixation with a proximal screw near the tibial tunnel aperture could increase graft stiffness and provide a more stable reconstruction. However, it remains unknown to what extent this mechanical theory influences in vivo graft performance over time.
We developed a technique to augment tibial distal fixation with a proximal screw near the tibial tunnel aperture to shorten the effective graft length and increase graft stiffness.
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed all 10 patients who had isolated PCL reconstructions with combined distal and proximal tibial fixation from 2003 to 2007. Mean age of the patients was 36.5 years. We measured ROM and obtained Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Lysholm scores. Anteroposterior stability was evaluated with a KT-2000 arthrometer. Minimum followup was 1 year (mean, 2.5 years; range, 1–4.8 years).
Mean Tegner scores before injury and at last followup were 7.3 and 6.5, respectively. Mean postoperative IKDC score was 87 versus a preoperative IKDC score of 43. Mean Lysholm score was 89 at last followup. All patients achieved full terminal extension. No patient had greater than a 5-mm difference in anterior or posterior displacement from the contralateral knee as measured by a KT-2000 arthrometer postoperatively (0.93 ± 0.79 mm).
In this small series, augmentation of tibial distal fixation with a proximal screw near the tibial tunnel aperture during reconstruction of the isolated PCL rupture restored function, motion, and stability.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
We thank Luke S. Oh, MD, Katherine Redford, BS, and Guoan Li, PhD, for their helpful comments on this study.
- 1.Apsingi S, Nguyen T, Bull AM, Unwin A, Deehan DJ, Amis AA. Control of laxity in knees with combined posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner deficiency: comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with modified Larson posterolateral corner reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:487–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hatayama K, Higuchi H, Kimura M, Kobayashi Y, Asagumo H, Takagishi K. A comparison of arthroscopic single- and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: review of 20 cases. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2006;35:568–571.Google Scholar
- 11.Hughston JC, Bowden JA, Andrews JR, Norwood LA. Acute tears of the posterior cruciate ligament. Results of operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:438–450.Google Scholar
- 19.Margheritini F, Mauro CS, Rihn JA, Stabile KJ, Woo SL, Harner CD. Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: analysis of knee kinematics and graft in situ forces. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32:587–593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Oakes DA, Markolf KL, McWilliams J, Young CR, McAllister DR. Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay and tibial tunnel techniques for reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. Analysis of graft forces. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:938–944.Google Scholar
- 32.Shelbourne KD, Davis TJ, Patel DV. The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries. A prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:276–283.Google Scholar