BACKGROUND: Despite persistent continuity of the attenuated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in most PCL insufficient knees, few reconstruction techniques that preserve the PCL remnant have been presented. Furthermore, data regarding the clinical outcomes of these approaches are even more limited, and the clinical validity of remnant preservation has not yet been established. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of transtibial PCL reconstructions that incorporate remnant preservation with conventional techniques (in which remnant preservation is not performed). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence 3. METHODS: The authors retrospectively evaluated 53 cases of PCL reconstruction with simultaneous posterolateral corner reconstruction. Of these, 23 were performed with a conventional approach without remnant preservation (group C), and 30 incorporated a remnant-preserving technique (group R). In all cases, the minimum follow-up period was 24 months. Each patient was evaluated using the following variables: Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, return to activity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee score and grade, and degree of posterior laxity on stress radiograph. RESULTS: The mean side-to-side differences in posterior tibial translation, Lysholm knee score, return to activity, and objective IKDC grade were similar between group C (4.4 ± 3.0 mm; 82.6 ± 11.0; 21.7%; A and B: 73.9%) and group R (4.1 ± 3.4 mm; 84.1 ± 10.7; 26.7%; A and B: 83.3%; P = .761, .611, .679, .755). However, the final Tegner activity scale, near-return to activity, and subjective IKDC score differed significantly between group C (3.5 ± 0.8; 43.5%; 64.5 ± 8.8) and group R (4.3 ± 1.1; 73.3%; 70.6 ± 7.9; P = .007, .028, .012). CONCLUSION: Techniques combining remnant-preserving transtibial single-bundle PCL reconstruction with posterolateral corner reconstruction resulted in somewhat better activity-related outcomes compared with those of approaches without remnant preservation. However, incorporation of remnant preservation does not appear to provide increased posterior stability or result in clinically superior outcomes versus those of techniques without remnant preservation.
BACKGROUND: Despite persistent continuity of the attenuated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in most PCL insufficient knees, few reconstruction techniques that preserve the PCL remnant have been presented. Furthermore, data regarding the clinical outcomes of these approaches are even more limited, and the clinical validity of remnant preservation has not yet been established. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of transtibial PCL reconstructions that incorporate remnant preservation with conventional techniques (in which remnant preservation is not performed). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence 3. METHODS: The authors retrospectively evaluated 53 cases of PCL reconstruction with simultaneous posterolateral corner reconstruction. Of these, 23 were performed with a conventional approach without remnant preservation (group C), and 30 incorporated a remnant-preserving technique (group R). In all cases, the minimum follow-up period was 24 months. Each patient was evaluated using the following variables: Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, return to activity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee score and grade, and degree of posterior laxity on stress radiograph. RESULTS: The mean side-to-side differences in posterior tibial translation, Lysholm knee score, return to activity, and objective IKDC grade were similar between group C (4.4 ± 3.0 mm; 82.6 ± 11.0; 21.7%; A and B: 73.9%) and group R (4.1 ± 3.4 mm; 84.1 ± 10.7; 26.7%; A and B: 83.3%; P = .761, .611, .679, .755). However, the final Tegner activity scale, near-return to activity, and subjective IKDC score differed significantly between group C (3.5 ± 0.8; 43.5%; 64.5 ± 8.8) and group R (4.3 ± 1.1; 73.3%; 70.6 ± 7.9; P = .007, .028, .012). CONCLUSION: Techniques combining remnant-preserving transtibial single-bundle PCL reconstruction with posterolateral corner reconstruction resulted in somewhat better activity-related outcomes compared with those of approaches without remnant preservation. However, incorporation of remnant preservation does not appear to provide increased posterior stability or result in clinically superior outcomes versus those of techniques without remnant preservation.
Authors: M Ettinger; M Petri; K T Haag; S Brand; A Dratzidis; C Hurschler; C Krettek; M Jagodzinski Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 4.342