Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Single Versus Double-Bundle PCL Reconstruction: Scientific Rationale and Clinical Evidence

  • PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia, section editors)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The goal of this paper is to review the biomechanical and clinical rationale for single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The primary question is whether there has been demonstrated any clear biomechanical or clinical superiority of a double-bundle reconstruction over a single-bundle reconstruction.

Recent Findings

There is some recent evidence demonstrating biomechanical superiority of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction; however, this is not definitive. Clinical superiority has not been clearly demonstrated as of yet.

Summary

The primary question which served as the basis of this review remains unanswered. There is recent biomechanical data to suggest a potential benefit of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction, but not all studies are in agreement. Furthermore, the possible biomechanical advantages have not yet been borne out in clinical studies. At this point, we cannot clearly recommend one technique versus another and the decision should be left to the treating surgeon.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Petrigliano FA, McAllister DR. Isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2006;14(4):206–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schulz MS, Russe K, Weiler A, Eichhorn HJ, Strobel MJ. Epidemiology of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(4):186–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shelbourne KD, et al. The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a prospective study. AJSM. 1999;27(3):276–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Margheritini F, Rihn J, Musahl V, Mariani PP, Harner C. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in the athlete: an anatomical, biomechanical and clinical review. Sports Med. 2002;32(6):393–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parolie JM, et al. Long-term results of nonoperative treatment of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in the athlete. AJSM. 1986;14(1):35–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Logan CA, et al. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee at the National Football League Combine: an imaging and epidemiology study. Arthroscopy. 2017;17(3):1162–5.

    Google Scholar 

  7. LaPrade RF, et al. A prospective magnetic resonance imaging study of the incidence of posterolateral and multiple ligament injuries in acute knee injuries presenting with a hemarthrosis. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(12):1341–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fanelli GC, Edson CJ. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients: part II. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):526–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Matava MJ, Ellis E, Gruber B. Surgical treatment of posterior cruciate ligament tears: an evolving technique. JAAOS. 2009;17(7):435–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahn S, Lee YS, Song YD, Chang CB, Kang SB, Choi YS. Does surgical reconstruction produce better stability than conservative treatment in the isolated PCL injuries? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:811–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Amis AA, Bull AMJ, Gupte CM, Hijazi I, Race A, Robinson JR. Biomechanics of the PCL and related structures: posterolateral, posteromedial and meniscofemoral ligaments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003;11(5):271–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bowman KF, et al. Anatomy and biomechanics of the posterior cruciate ligament, medial and lateral sides of the knee. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2010;18(4):222–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kato T, Śmigielski R, Ge Y, Zdanowicz U, Ciszek B, Ochi M. Posterior cruciate ligament is twisted and flat structure: new prospective on anatomical morphology. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(1):31–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson CJ, Ziegler CG, Wijdicks CA, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF. Arthroscopically pertinent anatomy of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament. JBJS AM. 2012;94(21):1936–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupte CM, Bull AMJ, Thomas RW, Amis AA. A review of the function and biomechanics of the meniscofemoral ligaments. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(2):161–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harner CD, Janaushek MA, Kanamori A, Yagi M, Vogrin TM, Woo SLY. Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:144–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Race A, Amis AA. PCL reconstruction: in vitro biomechanical comparison of ‘isometric’ versus single and double-bundled ‘anatomic’ grafts. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80:173–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Deehan DJ, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Pinczewski LA. Endoscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:955–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sekiya JK, West RV, Ong BC, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD. Clinical outcomes after isolated arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1042–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kohen RB, Sekiya JK. Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2009;25:1470–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. • Qi YS, Wang HJ, Wang SJ, Zhang ZZ, Huang AB, Yu JK. A systematic review of double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:45. A recent systematic review of the literature evaluating biomechanical studies and clinical outcome of single- versus double-bundle PCL reconstructions .

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. • Chahla J, von Bormann R, Engebretsen L, et al. Anatomic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: state of the art. JISAKOS. 2016;1:292–302. Current review article summarizing the anatomy, biomechanics, surgical anatomy considerations, and a proposed treatment algorithm for PCL injuries with an emphasis on the double-bundle reconstruction technique.

    Google Scholar 

  23. • LaPrade CM, Civitarese DM, Rasmussen MT, et al. Emerging updates on the posterior cruciate ligament: a review of the current literature. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:3077–92. Detailed review of surgical anatomy, diagnosis, radiographic evaluation, and surgical treatment of PCL injuries

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Markolf KL, Jackson SR, McAllister DR. Single- versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: effects of femoral tunnel separation. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:1141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Jackson SR, McAllister DR. Biomechanical studies of double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1788–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wijdicks CA, Kennedy NI, Goldsmith NT, et al. Kinematic analysis of the posterior cruciate ligament, part 2: a comparison of anatomic single- versus double-bundle reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2839–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kennedy NI, Wijdicks CA, Goldsmith NT, et al. Kinematic analysis of the posterior cruciate ligament, part 1: the individual and collective function of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2828–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmad CS, Cohen ZA, Levine WN, Gardner TR, Ateshian GA, Mow VC. Codominance of the individual posterior cruciate ligament bundles. An analysis of bundle lengths and orientation. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:221–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Markolf KL, Slauterbeck JR, Armstrong KL, et al. A biomechanical study of replacement of the posterior cruciate ligament with a graft. Part II: forces in the graft compared with forces in the intact ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:381–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Markolf KL, Zemanovic JR, McAllister DR. Cyclic loading of posterior cruciate ligament replacements fixed with tibial tunnel and tibial inlay methods. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:518–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mannor DA, Shearn JT, Grood ES, Noyes FR, Levy MS. Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vitro analysis of graft placement and tension. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:833–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bergfeld JA, Graham SM, Parker RD, Valdevit ADC, Kambic HE. A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:976–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mutnal A, Leo BM, Vargas L, Colbrunn RW, Butler RS, Uribe JW. Biomechanical analysis of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with aperture femoral fixation. Orthopedics. 2015;38:9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsukada H, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Yamamoto Y, Toh S. Biomechanical evaluation of an anatomic double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:264–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang CJ, Weng LH, Hsu CC, Chan YS. Arthroscopic single- versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring autograft. Injury. 2004;35:1293–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Houe T, JØrgensen U. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one- vs. two-tunnel technique. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14:107–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hatayama K, Higuchi H, Kimura M, et al. A comparison of arthroscopic single-and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: review of 20 cases. Am J Orthop. 2006;35:569–71.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kim SJ, Kim TE, Jo SB, Kung YP. Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2543–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shon OJ, Lee DC, Park CH, Kim WH, Jung KA. A comparison of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstruction for isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin Orthop Surg. 2010;2:76–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Yoon KH, Bae DK, Song SJ, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:4747–480.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kim SJ, Jung M, Moon HK, Kim SG, Chun YM. Anterolateral transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anatomical reconstruction of posterolateral corner insufficiency: comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate reconstruction over a 2- to 6-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:481–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ. Single compared to double-bundle PCL reconstruction using allograft tissue. J Knee Surg. 2012;25:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. • Chahla J, Moatshe G, Cinque ME, et al. Single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 441 patients at a minimum 2 years’ follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2017;33:2066–80. Most recent review article reporting clinical outcomes of SB versus DB reconstructions

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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;30:695–700.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Deie M, Adachi N, Nakame A, et al. Evaluation of single-bundle versus double-bundle PCL reconstructions with more than 10-year follow-up. Sci World J. 2015;2015:751465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jain V, Goyal A, Mohindra M, Kumar R, Joshi D, Chaudhary D. A comparative analysis of arthroscopic double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:1555–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Sports Medicine Service, Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, VA, USA

    Christopher J. Tucker

  2. Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Christopher J. Tucker

  3. Naples Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Naples, FL, USA

    Patrick W. Joyner

  4. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, McClure Musculoskeletal Research Center, University of Vermont, Robert T. Stafford Hall, 4th Floor, 95 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT, 05405-0084, USA

    Nathan K. Endres

Authors
  1. Christopher J. Tucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick W. Joyner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathan K. Endres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan K. Endres.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict 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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on PCL Update

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tucker, C.J., Joyner, P.W. & Endres, N.K. Single Versus Double-Bundle PCL Reconstruction: Scientific Rationale and Clinical Evidence. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 11, 285–289 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-018-9486-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-018-9486-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation