Advertisement

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 307–315 | Cite as

Arthroscopic Transtibial PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes

  • Jessica Shin
  • Travis G. Maak
PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia, section editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on PCL Update

Abstract

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 findings

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.

Summary

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.

Keywords

Posterior cruciate ligament Transtibial Knee Arthroscopy Sports medicine 

Notes

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).

References

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

  1. 1.
    Gill TJ, DeFrate LE, Wang C, et al. The biomechanical effect of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on knee joint function: kinematic response to simulated muscle loads. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(4):530–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gollehon DL, Torzilli PA, Warren RF. The role of the posterolateral and cruciate ligaments in the stability of the human knee: a biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(2):233–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harner CD, Janaushek MA, Kanamori A, Yagi M, Vogrin TM, Woo SL. Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(2):144–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kennedy NI, Wijdicks CA, Goldsmith MT, Michalski MP, Devitt BM, Årøen A, 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(12):2828–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li G, Gill TJ, DeFrate LE, Zayontz S, Glatt V, Zarins B. Biomechanical consequences of PCL deficiency in the knee under simulated muscle loads—an in vitro experimental study. J Orthop Res. 2002;20(4):887–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margheritini F, Rihn JA, Mauro CS, Stabile KJ, Woo SL, Harner CD. Biomechanics of initial tibial fixation in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(10):1164–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Tejwani SG, Martin DE, McAllister DR. Changes in knee laxity and ligament force after sectioning the posteromedial bundle of the posterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(10):1100–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mauro CS, Sekiya JK, Stabile KJ, Haemmerle MJ, Harner CD. Double-bundle PCL and posterolateral corner reconstruction components are codominant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(9):2247–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papannagari R, DeFrate LE, Nha KW, et al. Function of posterior cruciate ligament bundles during in vivo knee flexion. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(9):1507–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(2):221–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amis AA, Bull AM, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupte CM, Bull AM, Thomas RD, Amis AA. A review of the function and biomechanics of the meniscofemoral ligaments. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(2):161–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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(3):276–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fanelli GC, Edson CJ. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients, part II. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):526–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubinstein RA Jr, Shelbourne KD, McCarroll JR, VanMeter CD, Rettig AC. The accuracy of the clinical examination in the setting of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22(4):550–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer SP, Fox JM, Del Pizzo W, Friedman MJ, Snyder SJ, Ferkel RD. Accuracy of diagnoses from magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: a multi-center analysis of one thousand and fourteen patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(1):2–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gross ML, Grover JS, Bassett LW, Seeger LL, Finerman GA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the posterior cruciate ligament: clinical use to improve diagnostic accuracy. Am J Sports Med. 1992;20(6):732–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Polly DW Jr, Callaghan JJ, Sikes RA, McCabe JM, McMahon K, Savory CG. The accuracy of selective magnetic resonance imaging compared with the findings of arthroscopy of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(2):192–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jackman T, LaPrade RF, Pontinen T, Lender PA. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the kneeling technique of stress radiography for the evaluation of posterior knee laxity. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(8):1571–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jung TM, Reinhardt C, Scheffler SU, Weiler A. Stress radiography to measure posterior cruciate ligament insufficiency: a comparison of five different techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(11):1116–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schulz MS, Russe K, Lampakis G, Strobel MJ. Reliability of stress radiography for evaluation of posterior knee laxity. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(4):502–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bergfeld JA, Graham SM, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE. A bio-mechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(7):976–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bergfeld JA, McAllister DR, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE. A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(2):129–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Markolf KL, Zemanovic JR Matava MJ, Ellis E, Gruber B. Surgical treatment of posterior cruciate ligament tears: an evolving technique. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(7):435–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McAllister DR. Cyclic loading of posterior cruciate ligament replacements fixed with tibial tunnel and tibial inlay methods. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(4):518–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    Ahn JH, Yang HS, Jeong WK, Koh KH. Arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with preservation of posterior cruciate ligament fibers: clinical results of minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(2):194–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noyes FR, Barber-Westin S. Posterior cruciate ligament replacement with a two-strand quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft and a tibial inlay technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(6):1241–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cooper DE, Stewart D. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle patella tendon graft with tibial inlay fixation: 2- to 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2004 Mar;32(2):346–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 Nov;91(11):2543–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stannard JP, Riley RS, Sheils TM, McGwin G, Volgas DA. Anatomic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament after multiligament knee injuries. A combination of the tibial-inlay and two-femoral-tunnel techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):196–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    MacGillivray JD, Stein BE, Park M, Allen AA, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):320–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seon JK, Song EK. Reconstruction of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a clinical comparison of the transtibial and tibial inlay techniques. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(1):27–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Panchal HB, Sekiya JK. Open tibial inlay versus arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(9):1289–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    Boutefnouchet T, Bentayeb M, Qadri Q, Ali S. Long-term outcomes following single-bundle transtibial arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2013 Feb;37(2):337–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. 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
  39. 39.
    Yoon KH, Bae DK, Song SJ, Cho HJ, Lee JH. A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(3):474–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Del Buono A, Radmilovic J, Gargano G, Gatto S, Maffulli N. Augmentation or reconstruction of PCL? A quantitative review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(5):1050–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 42.
    Lee SH, Jung YB, Lee HJ, Jung HJ, Kim SH. Remnant preservation is helpful to obtain good clinical results in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of clinical results of three techniques. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5(4):278–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hudgens JL, Gillette BP, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, May JH, Levy BA. Allograft versus autograft in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based systematic review. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(2):109–U5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang CJ, Chan YS, Weng LH, Yuan LJ, Chen HS. Comparison of autogenous and allogenous posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee. Injury. 2004;35:1279–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Utah Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations