Literature DB >> 16517317

Comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: minimum 2-year follow-up.

John D MacGillivray1, Beth E Shubin Stein, Maxwell Park, Answorth A Allen, Thomas L Wickiewicz, Russell F Warren.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment of isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries is controversial. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of PCL reconstruction. Two techniques were compared, the traditional endoscopic and the more recent tibial inlay, to determine if the inlay technique yielded more stable reconstructions. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective study of surgical outcomes.
METHODS: Between 1980 and 1997 [corrected], 29 patients underwent surgery for isolated PCL injuries at our institution. Two patients underwent primary repair, 4 underwent primary repair with semitendinosus-gracilis augmentation, and 1 had a tibial inlay with a double femoral tunnel, and these patients were excluded from this study. Two patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 20 patients who were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 5.7 years (range, 2 to 15 years). The average age at surgery was 29 years (range, 17 to 49 years). The primary indication for surgery was instability (95%). The surgical procedures included 13 traditional endoscopic transtibial PCL reconstructions (9 bone-patellar tendon-bone [BPTB] autograft, 2 BPTB allograft, and 2 allograft Achilles tendon) and 7 tibial inlay (all BPTB, 5 allograft and 2 autograft). Each patient was evaluated using the Tegner, Lysholm, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) knee-rating scales, physical examination, corrected KT-1000 arthrometry, functional testing, and radiographs. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact t test, Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, and Mann-Whitney test.
RESULTS: Overall, 90% pf patients were satisfied with their surgery. The postoperative posterior drawer test result improved in 4 of 7 (57%) in the inlay group, and in 5 of 13 (38%) in the endoscopic group. The mean corrected KT-1000 measurement was 5.7 mm overall, 5.5 mm (inlay) and 5.9 mm (endoscopic). The mean preoperative Tegner score was 6.86 (inlay) and 6.92 (endoscopic). The mean postoperative Tegner score was 6.00 for both groups. The mean Lysholm score was 76 (inlay) and 82 (endoscopic), and the AAOS knee score was 77 (inlay) and 90 (endoscopic). There was a trend toward increased radiographic progression of Fairbanks changes in the medial and patellofemoral compartments in the endoscopic group, but the numbers did not reach statistical significance (P = .057).
CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the traditional endoscopic reconstructions with the tibial inlay technique, there were no significant differences in posterior drawer testing, KT-1000, functional testing, or Lysholm, Tegner, and AAOS knee scores at a minimum 2 year follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study indicate that neither method (transtibial or inlay) of PCL reconstruction consistently restores anteroposterior stability to its original state when using a single-bundle femoral attachment site.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16517317     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.08.057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  42 in total

1.  Clinical outcome after reconstruction for isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury.

Authors:  Odd Arve Lien; Emilie Jul-Larsen Aas; Steinar Johansen; Tom Clement Ludvigsen; Wender Figved; Lars Engebretsen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Accessory anterolateral portal in arthroscopic PCL reconstruction.

Authors:  Gun Woo Lee; Soo-Jin Jang; Young Choi; Jung-Hwan Son
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Double-bundle "all-inside" posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Daniel Slullitel; Hernan Galan; Vanina Ojeda; Matias Seri
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2012-08-03

4.  Prospective analysis using a patient-based health-related scale shows lower functional scores after posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions as compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee.

Authors:  Satoshi Ochiai; Tetsuo Hagino; Shinya Senga; Takashi Yamashita; Takashi Ando; Hirotaka Haro
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  The predictive effect of anatomic femoral and tibial graft tunnel placement in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on functional and radiological outcome.

Authors:  Michael Osti; Doris Hierzer; Alessa Krawinkel; Thomas Hoffelner; Karl Peter Benedetto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with "all-inside" technique: a technical note.

Authors:  Corrado Bait; Matteo Denti; Emanuele Prospero; Alessandro Quaglia; Antonio Orgiani; Piero Volpi
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2015-02-05

7.  Surgical management of PCL injuries: indications, techniques, and outcomes.

Authors:  Scott R Montgomery; Jared S Johnson; David R McAllister; Frank A Petrigliano
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2013-06

Review 8.  Nonoperative Treatment of PCL Injuries: Goals of Rehabilitation and the Natural History of Conservative Care.

Authors:  Dean Wang; Jessica Graziano; Riley J Williams; Kristofer J Jones
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-06

Review 9.  Graft Considerations in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Pierce Johnson; Sean M Mitchell; Simon Görtz
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-09

10.  A comparison of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstruction for isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury.

Authors:  Oog Jin Shon; Dong Chul Lee; Chul Hyun Park; Won Ho Kim; Kwang Am Jung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2010-05-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.