Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative analysis of arthroscopic double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft

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

Abstract

Purpose

Anatomically, posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) consists of two bundles, i.e. anterolateral (AL) and posteromedial (PM) bundle. Single-bundle PCL (SBPCL) reconstruction remains most popular method of reconstruction, though double-bundle PCL (DBPCL) reconstruction is more anatomical. This study was done to analyse the clinical and functional outcome after both SBPCL and DBPCL reconstructions using autologous hamstring grafts.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including patients who underwent either DBPCL or SBPCL reconstruction for chronic symptomatic PCL injury. Clinical, functional and radiological evaluation was done pre-operatively and 3 months post-operatively and thereafter at every 6-month interval. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 24 months were included in the study. Pre-operative posterior translation was quantified by manual posterior drawer, KT 1000 measurement and stress radiography. Functional outcome was done using Lysholm and IKDC scores. MRI was done in all patients.

Results

Records of 40 patients were available with minimum follow-up of 24 months. Out of these, DBPCL reconstruction was done in 18 patients and SBPCL reconstruction was done in 22 patients. Four patients in DB (double-bundle PCL reconstruction) group and five in SB (single-bundle PCL reconstruction) group had more than grade I laxity by posterior drawer and on KT 1000 measurement DB group had average side-to-side difference of 1.78 mm and SB group 2.44 mm (p value = 0.0487). On functional assessment by Lysholm and IKDC score, there was significant improvement from pre-operative values in both the groups with no significant difference between the groups post-operatively. Stress radiography revealed significantly less post-translation in DB group as compared to SB group.

Conclusion

Though DBPCL reconstruction results in less posterior laxity, there is no difference in functional outcome of SBPCL and DBPCL reconstructions.

Level of evidence

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cooper DE, Warren RF, Warner JJP (1991) The posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral structures of the knee anatomy, functions and pattern of injury. Instr Course Lect 40:249–270

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ (2010) Current concepts review: the posterior cruciate ligament. J Knee Surg 23(2):61–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Deie M, Adachi N, Nakamae A, Takazawa K, Ochi M (2015) Evaluation of single-bundle versus double-bundle PCL reconstructions with more than 10-year follow up. Sci World J 2015:751465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang CJ, Weng LH, Hsu CC, Chan YS (2004) Arthroscopic single versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring autograft. Injury 35:1293–1299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Houe T, Jorgensen U (2004) Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one- vs. two-tunnel technique. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14:107–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fox RJ, Harner CD, Sakane M, Carlin GJ, Woo SL (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. Butler DL, Noyes FR, Grood ES (1980) Ligamentous restraints to anterior-posterior drawer in the human knee. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:259–270

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kohen RB, Sekiya JK (2009) Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc 25(12):1470–1477

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bergfeld JA, Graham SM, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE (2005) A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med 33:976–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Yoon HK, Bae DK, Song Sang, Jun Cho H, Lee Hwan (2011) A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers. Am J Sports Med 39:474–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Becker R, Ropke M, Nebelung W (1999) Clinical outcome of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament-plasty. Unfallchirurg 102:354–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sports Injury Centre, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, 110029, India

    Vineet Jain, Ankit Goyal, Mukul Mohindra, Rahul Kumar, Deepak Joshi & Deepak Chaudhary

Authors
  1. Vineet Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ankit Goyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mukul Mohindra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rahul Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Deepak Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Deepak Chaudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vineet Jain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jain, V., Goyal, A., Mohindra, M. et al. 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 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2512-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2512-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation