Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative laxity measurements using a navigation system in anatomical double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate knee kinematics during double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-PCLR) intraoperatively using a navigation system, and especially assess biomechanical behaviour of the anterolateral bundle (ALB) and posteromedial bundle (PMB) graft in DB-PCLR. Also, clinical results of minimum 2-year follow-up were investigated.

Methods

Nine patients received DB-PCLR with hamstring graft. Before reconstruction, knee laxities, including posterior tibial translation (PTT) in neutral rotation at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75° and 90° of knee flexion, were measured using a kinematic-based navigation system. After the PMB or ALB was temporally fixed, the knee laxities were measured in the same manner. Each patient was evaluated pre- and post-operatively with side-to-side difference of tibial position in gravity sag view and Lysholm score.

Results

Both ALB and PMB fixation restrained the PTT compared to  PCL deficiency throughout all knee flexion angles. At 90° of knee flexion, ALB fixation significantly decreased PTT compare to PMB fixation (p = 0.014) and DB-PCLR significantly decreased PTT compare to ALB fixation (p = 0.045). The mean side-to-side difference of tibial position in gravity sag view was 12.0 ± 1.7 mm preoperatively and 2.3 ± 1.8 mm at final follow-up, and the mean Lysholm scores were 68.9 ± 20.9 and 96.3 ± 2.9, respectively.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in the PTT between ALB and PMB fixations at 0° to 75° of knee flexion, and both ALB and PMB reconstructions are important for restraining PTT. At 90° of knee flexion, the ALB grafts may be more important to control PTT compared to PMB grafts; however, neither single-bundle reconstruction with ALB nor PMB could function as DB-PCLR did. In addition, PTT after DB-PCLR was strongly correlated side-to-side difference in posterior sag view at the final follow-up. The results from this study indicated that both ALB and PMB are important to stabilize PCL-deficient knees.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic study, Level III.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmad CS, Cohen ZA, Levine WN, Gardner TR, Ateshian GA, Mow VC (2003) Codominance of the individual posterior cruciate ligament bundles. An analysis of bundle lengths and orientation. Am J Sports Med 31:221–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Clancy WG Jr, Shelbourne KD, Zoellner GB, Keene JS, Reider B, Rosenberg TD (1983) Treatment of knee joint instability secondary to rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament. Report of a new procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:310–322

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Colombet P, Robinson J, Christel P, Franceschi JP, Djian P (2007) Using navigation to measure rotation kinematics during ACL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Desai N, Bjo¨rnsson H H, Musahl V, Bhandari M, Petzold M, Fu FH, Samuelsson K (2014) Anatomic single-versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1009–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ettinger M, Petri M, Guenther D, Liu C, Krusche C, Liodakis E, Albrecht UV, Krettek C, Jagodzinski M (2013) Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction restricts knee extension in knees with hypertension. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2057–2062

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fox RJ, Harner CD, Sakane M, Carlin GJ, Woo SLY (1998) Determination of the in situ forces in the human posterior cruciate ligament using robotic technology. A cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 26:395–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Girgis FG, Marshall JL, Monajem ARS (1975) The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint. Anatomical, functional and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 106:216–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gollehon DL, Torzilli PA, Warren RF (1987) The role of the posterolateral and cruciate ligaments in the stability of the human knee. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69:233–242

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grood ES, Stowers SF, Noyes FR (1988) Limits of movement in the human knee. Effect of sectioning the posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral structures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70:88–97

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanner CD, Xerogeanes JW, Livesay GA, Carlin GJ, Smith BA, Kusayama T, Kashiwaguchi S, Woo SL (1995) The human posterior cruciate ligament complex: an interdisciplinary study. Ligament morphology and biomechanical evaluation. Am J Sports Med 23:736–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harner CD, Hoher J (1998) Evaluation and treatment of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 26:471–482

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harner CD, Baek GH, Vogrin TM, Carlin GJ, Kashiwaguchi S, Woo SL (1999) Quantitative analysis of human cruciate ligament insertions. Arthroscopy 15:741–749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harner CD, Janaushek MA, Kanamori A, Yagi M, Vogrin TM, Woo SL (2000) Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 28:144–151

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hiraga Y, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Tsukada H, Toh S (2006) Biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques using cyclic loading tests. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:13–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Tsukada H, Toh S (2008) Intraoperative biomechanical evaluation of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a navigation system comparison of hamstring tendon and bone–patellar tendon–bone graft. Am J Sports Med 32:1903–1912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Yamamoto Y, Tsukada H, Satoshi T (2009) Navigation evaluation of the pivot-shift phenomenon during double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: is the posterolateral bundle more important? Arthroscopy 25:488–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koh J (2005) Computer-assisted navigation and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: accuracy and outcomes. Orthopedics 28(10 suppl):S1283–S1287

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Koh J, Koo SS, Leonard J, Kodali P (2006) Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tunnel placement: a radiographic comparison between navigated versus manual ACL reconstruction. Orthopedics 29:S122–S124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mannor DA, Shearn JT, Grood ES, Noyes FR, Levy MS (2000) Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro analysis of graft placement and tension. Am J Sports Med 28:833–845

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Tejwani SG, Martin DE, McAllister DR (2006) Changes in knee laxity and ligament force after sectioning the posteromedial bundle of the posterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy 22:1100–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Jackson SR, Mcallister DR (2006) Biomechanical studies of double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg 88:1788–1794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nakamura N, Takeuchi R, Sawaguchi T, Ishikawa H, Saito T, Goldhahn S (2011) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). J Orthop Sci 16:516–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Papannagari R, DeFrate LE, Nha KW, Moses JM, Moussa M, Gill TJ, Li G (2007) Function of posterior cruciate ligament bundles during in vivo knee flexion. Am J Sports Med 35:1507–1512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Race A, Amis AA (1994) The mechanical properties of the two bundles of the human posterior cruciate ligament. J Biomech 27:13–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Race A, Amis AA (1996) Loading of the two bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament: an analysis of bundle function in A-P drawer. J Biomech 29:873–879

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sekiya JK, West RV, Ong BC, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD (2005) Clinical outcomes after isolated arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 21:1042–1050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shino K, Mitsuoka T, Horibe S, Hamada M, Nakata K, Nakamura N (2000) The gravity sag view: a simple radiographic technique to show posterior laxity of the knee. Arthroscopy 16:670–672

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tajima G, Nozaki M, Iriuchishima T, Ingham SJ, Shen W, Smolinski P, Fu FH (2009) Morphology of the tibial insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:859–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsuda E, Ishibashi Y, Fukuda A, Tsukada H, Toh S (2007) Validation of computer-assisted double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopedics 30:S136–S140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tsukada H, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Yamamoto Y (2012) Biomechanical evaluation of an anatomic double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 28:264–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang JH, Yoon JR, Jeong H, Hwang DH, Woo SJ, Kwon JH, Nha KW (2012) Second-look arthroscopic assessment of arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparison of mixed graft versus achilles tendon allograft. Am J Sports Med 40:2052–2060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Eiji Sasaki, MD, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, for statistical analysis and data processing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Zaifu-cho 5, Hirosaki, 036-8562, Japan

    Yuka Kimura, Eiichi Tsuda, Yasuharu Hiraga, Yuji Yamamoto, Shugo Maeda & Yasuyuki Ishibashi

Authors
  1. Yuka Kimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eiichi Tsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yasuharu Hiraga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuji Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shugo Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yasuyuki Ishibashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuka Kimura.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kimura, Y., Tsuda, E., Hiraga, Y. et al. Intraoperative laxity measurements using a navigation system in anatomical double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23, 3085–3093 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3418-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3418-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation