Arthroscopic Transtibial PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes
Purpose of review
Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries are relatively uncommon injuries. As such, there is a dearth of high-quality studies in the literature examining the operative management of PCL injuries and a lack of clear consensus on what the optimal method should be. The goal of this review was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of recent literature and provide an evidence-based algorithm to optimize surgical decision-making and outcomes for PCL reconstruction.
Recent literature confirms that transtibial PCL reconstruction is a reliable and reproducible method to manage PCL injuries and results in satisfactory patient outcomes. However, there does not yet appear to be enough new, compelling information to conclusively determine an optimal method for surgical management.
Our preferred method of management for operative PCL injuries is a single bundle transtibial PCL reconstruction, which is supported by the current body of literature. Future high-quality research studies are necessary to further guide treatment algorithms.
KeywordsPosterior cruciate ligament Transtibial Knee Arthroscopy Sports medicine
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Travis G. Maak reports personal fees from Arthrex, outside the submitted work. Jessica Shin reports no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 26.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(3):587–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.•• Song EK, Park HW, Ahn YS, Seon JK. Transtibial versus tibial inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(12):2964–71. Song and colleagues performed a study comparing outcomes at mean follow-up of 148 months between arthroscopic transtibial and open tibial inlay PCL reconstruction. They found that overall both groups improved significantly after surgery with outcomes being similar between the two groups. Meniscectomy at time of surgery appeared to correlate with development of arthritis in both groups. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.•• Shin YS, Kim HJ, Lee DH. No clinically important difference in knee scores or instability between transtibial and inlay techniques for PCL reconstruction: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:1239–48. This study by Shin et al is a systematic review comparing Tegner and Lysholm scores as well as residual posterior laxity between groups that underwent single bundle PCL reconstruction with transtibial or tibial inlay techniques. They found that there were no clinically important differences in Tegner and Lysholm scores or with residual posterior laxity in the seven studies that were included as part of the review. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.• Li Y, Li J, Wang J, Gao S, Zhang Y. Comparison of single-bundle and double-bundle isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft: a prospective, randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(6):695–700. This study by Li and colleagues is a prospective, randomized study of 50 patients who underwent either single bundle or double bundle arthroscopic transtibial PCL reconstruction. Results of the study showed that while subjective outcome scores were similar between the two groups, the double bundle group had a significantly smaller side-to-side difference in posterior translation when compared with the uninjured knee. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.• Lee DW, Jang HW, Lee YS, Oh SJ, Kim JY, Song HE, et al. Clinical, functional, and morphological evaluations of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(8):1822–31. This study by Lee et al examines the minimum two year clinical outcomes and residual posterior instability in patients undergoing arthroscopic PCL reconstruction with remnant preservation with or without PLC reconstruction. Both clinical outcomes and posterior instability improved significantly. Postoperative proprioception was also assessed using the Biodex system and was found to have recovered to a level similar to the uninjured side at final follow-up. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.• Li B, Wang JS, He M, Wang GB, Shen P, Bai LH. Comparison of hamstring tendon autograft and tibialis anterior allograft in arthroscopic transtibial single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(10):3077–84. In this study, Li and colleagues compare outcomes between hamstring autograft and tibialis anterior allograft single bundle transtibial PCL reconstruction. They found no differences between the two groups in regards to knee function and residual posterior laxity. Both groups improved significantly when compared to pre-operative status, however did continue to have residual laxity post-operatively that was worse than the uninjured knee. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.• Kwon JH, Han JH, Jo DY, Park HJ, Lee SY, Bhandare N, et al. Tunnel volume enlargement after posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of Achilles allograft with mixed autograft/allograft—a prospective computed tomography study. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(3):326–34. Kwon et al designed this study to assess for the overall incidence of tunnel volume enlargement (TVE) after PCL reconstruction with remnant preservation as well as to compare TVE when allograft or mixed autograft/allograft was used. They found that overall incidence of TVE was low for both the femoral and tibial tunnels. There was no significant difference in the TVE caused by single bundle PCL reconstruction when allograft or mixed autograft/allograft was used. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar