Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Graft sources do not affect to the outcome of transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Despite numerous published reports on posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction in the past 30 years, the ideal graft source remains unclear, and few objective scientific data have been published that thoroughly evaluate the long-term outcomes according to the graft source. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review of available high-quality comparative studies that evaluated clinical and objective stability testing to compare the different graft sources for PCL reconstruction.

Materials and methods

Eight articles were included in the final analysis. There were two level II and six level III studies. Autograft included 4-strand hamstring grafts (SHGs), 7-SHGs, quadriceps tendon, and patellar tendon. Allografts included Achilles tendon and tibialis anterior tendon. Hybrid graft and a ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) were used in one study each. Comparison was performed between autografts and allografts in three studies, between different autografts in two studies, between autograft and LARS in one study, among three different grafts in one study, and between 4 and 7-SHGs in one study.

Results

Most studies reported no statistically significant differences in the clinical results, except for one study that compared 4- and 7-SHG. Stability was similar or superior in a comparison between autografts and allografts, and was not statistically different between different autografts or between 4-SHG and LARS. However, more-stranded HG showed better stability than that of the less-stranded HG. Complications were more frequent with autografts.

Conclusion

Using a comprehensive analysis of the current literature, the authors could not identify an individual graft source with clearly superior clinical results, compared with other graft sources. However, autografts, especially 4-SHGs, showed similar or superior stability to irradiated allografts. Therefore, the graft source has a minimal effect on the clinical outcome, but it could have some effects on stability in single bundle transtibial PCL reconstruction.

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. Ahn JH, Lee YS, Choi SH, Chang MJ, Lee DK (2013) Single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a bioabsorbable cross-pin tibial back side fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1023–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahn JH, Yoo JC, Wang JH (2005) Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: double-loop hamstring tendon autograft versus Achilles tendon allograft–clinical results of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 21:965–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahn S, Lee YS, Song YD, Chang CB, Kang SB, Choi YS (2016) Does surgical reconstruction produce better stability than conservative treatment in the isolated PCL injuries? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:811–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O’Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schunemann HJ, Edejer T, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Zaza S (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen CH, Chen WJ, Shih CH (2002) Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a comparison of quadriceps tendon autograft and quadruple hamstring tendon graft. Arthroscopy 18:603–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen CH, Chou SW, Chen WJ, Shih CH (2004) Fixation strength of three different graft types used in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 12:371–375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellis HB, Matheny LM, Briggs KK, Pennock AT, Steadman JR (2012) Outcomes and revision rate after bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients aged 18 years or younger with closed physes. Arthroscopy 28:1819–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Foster TE, Wolfe BL, Ryan S, Silvestri L, Kaye EK (2010) Does the graft source really matter in the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? An evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction results: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 38:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gwinner C, Weiler A, Denecke T, Rogasch JMM, Boeth H, Jung TM (2018) Degenerative changes after posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are irrespective of posterior knee stability: MRI-based long-term results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hudgens JL, Gillette BP, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, May JH, Levy BA (2013) Allograft versus autograft in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based systematic review. J Knee Surg 26:109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jain V, Goyal A, Mohindra M, Kumar R, Joshi D, Chaudhary D (2016) A comparative analysis of arthroscopic double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:1555–1561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jung YB, Jung HJ, Tae SK, Lee YS, Yang DL (2006) Tensioning of remnant posterior cruciate ligament and reconstruction of anterolateral bundle in chronic posterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthroscopy 22:329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jung YB, Tae SK, Jung HJ, Lee KH (2004) Replacement of the torn posterior cruciate ligament with a mid-third patellar tendon graft with use of a modified tibial inlay method. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86-a:1878–1883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kennedy NI, LaPrade RF, Goldsmith MT, Faucett SC, Rasmussen MT, Coatney GA, Engebretsen L, Wijdicks CA (2014) Posterior cruciate ligament graft fixation angles, part 1: biomechanical evaluation for anatomic single-bundle reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 42:2338–2345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kraeutler MJ, Bravman JT, McCarty EC (2013) Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft in outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of 5182 patients. Am J Sports Med 41:2439–2448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee YS, Ahn JH, Jung YB, Wang JH, Yoo JC, Jung HJ, Kang BJ (2007) Transtibial double bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using TransFix tibial fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:973–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee YS, Han SH, Kim JH (2012) A biomechanical comparison of tibial back side fixation between suspensory and expansion mechanisms in trans-tibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 19:55–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Li J, Kong F, Gao X, Shen Y, Gao S (2016) Prospective randomized comparison of knee stability and proprioception for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft, hybrid graft, and γ-irradiated allograft. Arthroscopy 32:2548–2555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Li X, Yin L, Chen ZY, Zhu L, Wang HL, Chen W, Yang G, Zhang YZ (2014) The effect of tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty: grading the evidence through an updated meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:973–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin YC, Chen SK, Liu TH, Cheng YM, Chou PP (2013) Arthroscopic transtibial single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon graft compared with hamstring tendon graft. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:523–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mariscalco MW, Magnussen RA, Mehta D, Hewett TE, Flanigan DC, Kaeding CC (2014) Autograft versus nonirradiated allograft tissue for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 42:492–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marrale J, Morrissey MC, Haddad FS (2007) A literature review of autograft and allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:690–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pujji O, Keswani N, Collier N, Black M, Doos L (2017) Evaluating the functional results and complications of autograft vs allograft use for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a systematic review. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 9:6833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Race A, Amis AA (1998) PCL reconstruction. In vitro biomechanical comparison of ‘isometric’ versus single and double-bundled ‘anatomic’ grafts. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:173–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Song EK, Park HW, Ahn YS, Seon JK (2014) Transtibial versus tibial inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 42:2964–2971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sterne JA, et. al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sun X, Zhang J, Qu X, Zheng Y (2015) Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft. Arch Med Sci 11:395–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tornese D, Bandi M, Volpi P, Schonhuber H, Denti M, Gabriele G, Melegati G (2008) Patellar tendon graft vs. Semitendinosus and Gracilis graft for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: An isokinetic and functional study one year after the operation. Isokinet Exerc Sci 16:133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang CJ, Chan YS, Weng LH, Yuan LJ, Chen HS (2004) Comparison of autogenous and allogenous posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee. Injury 35:1279–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Xu X, Huang T, Liu Z, Wen H, Ye L, Hu Y, Yu H, Pan X (2014) Hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a long-term follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:1753–1759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhao J, Huangfu X (2007) Arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: retrospective review of 4- versus 7-strand hamstring tendon graft. Knee 14:301–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 166 Gumi-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, 463-707, South Korea

    Yong Seuk Lee, Seung Hoon Lee & O-Sung Lee

Authors
  1. Yong Seuk Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seung Hoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O-Sung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Seuk Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, Y.S., Lee, S.H. & Lee, OS. Graft sources do not affect to the outcome of transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138, 1103–1116 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2946-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2946-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation