Eun-Kyoo Song1, Hyeong-Won Park2, Yeong-Seub Ahn1, Jong-Keun Seon3. 1. Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam, Korea. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mokpo Hankook Hospital, Mokpo, Korea. 3. Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam, Korea seonbell@jnu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most common technique for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction is transtibial or tibial inlay. However, few studies have reported long-term outcome comparisons between the 2 techniques. HYPOTHESIS: Tibial inlay PCL reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft will exhibit better clinical and radiographic outcomes than transtibial PCL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 66 patients (66 knees) treated withPCL reconstruction for chronic injuries constituted the study cohort. Patients were divided into 2 groups: transtibial with hamstring (36 patients) and tibial inlay with patellar tendon (30 patients). The mean time from injury to reconstruction was 12.2 months (range, 2-60 months), and the mean follow-up was 148 months (range, 98-196 months). Outcomes were measured by use of Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, return to preinjury sports activity, posterior drawer test, laxity test with a Telos device, and development of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: The preoperative mean Lysholm knee score was 59.9 (range, 37-70) in the transtibial group and 54.5 (range, 22-76) in the tibial inlay group, improving postoperatively to 89.9 (range, 74-100) and 92.1 (range, 80-100), respectively. The mean Tegner activity scores increased from 2.5 (range, 2-5) to 5.9 (range, 4-7) in the transtibial group and 2.3 (range, 2-4) to 6.0 (range, 3-8) in the tibial inlay group. Twenty-one patients (58.3%) in the transtibial group and 19 patients (63.3%) in the tibial inlay group were able to return to preinjury sports activity. In the posterior drawer test, 6 patients in the transtibial group and 4 patients in the tibial inlay group showed grade II laxity. The mean side-to-side difference was 10.1 mm (range, 7-12 mm) in the transtibial group and 10.4 mm (range, 9-13 mm) in the tibial inlay group, improving postoperatively to 4.1 mm (range, 0-8 mm) and 4.2 mm (range, 1-8 mm), respectively. There was significant improvement between preoperative and final follow-up values. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in final follow-up outcomes. Final follow-up radiographs showed that 6 patients (16.7%) in the transtibial group and 3 patients (10.0%) in the tibial inlay group were rated grade C according to International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines. CONCLUSION: Clinical and radiographic outcomes between the 2 PCL reconstruction techniques were comparable. Osteoarthritis was observed in patients, with a significant proportion presenting loss of joint space. Examined factors, excluding meniscectomy, were not correlated with the development of osteoarthritis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The most common technique for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction is transtibial or tibial inlay. However, few studies have reported long-term outcome comparisons between the 2 techniques. HYPOTHESIS: Tibial inlay PCL reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft will exhibit better clinical and radiographic outcomes than transtibial PCL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 66 patients (66 knees) treated with PCL reconstruction for chronic injuries constituted the study cohort. Patients were divided into 2 groups: transtibial with hamstring (36 patients) and tibial inlay with patellar tendon (30 patients). The mean time from injury to reconstruction was 12.2 months (range, 2-60 months), and the mean follow-up was 148 months (range, 98-196 months). Outcomes were measured by use of Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, return to preinjury sports activity, posterior drawer test, laxity test with a Telos device, and development of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: The preoperative mean Lysholm knee score was 59.9 (range, 37-70) in the transtibial group and 54.5 (range, 22-76) in the tibial inlay group, improving postoperatively to 89.9 (range, 74-100) and 92.1 (range, 80-100), respectively. The mean Tegner activity scores increased from 2.5 (range, 2-5) to 5.9 (range, 4-7) in the transtibial group and 2.3 (range, 2-4) to 6.0 (range, 3-8) in the tibial inlay group. Twenty-one patients (58.3%) in the transtibial group and 19 patients (63.3%) in the tibial inlay group were able to return to preinjury sports activity. In the posterior drawer test, 6 patients in the transtibial group and 4 patients in the tibial inlay group showed grade II laxity. The mean side-to-side difference was 10.1 mm (range, 7-12 mm) in the transtibial group and 10.4 mm (range, 9-13 mm) in the tibial inlay group, improving postoperatively to 4.1 mm (range, 0-8 mm) and 4.2 mm (range, 1-8 mm), respectively. There was significant improvement between preoperative and final follow-up values. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in final follow-up outcomes. Final follow-up radiographs showed that 6 patients (16.7%) in the transtibial group and 3 patients (10.0%) in the tibial inlay group were rated grade C according to International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines. CONCLUSION: Clinical and radiographic outcomes between the 2 PCL reconstruction techniques were comparable. Osteoarthritis was observed in patients, with a significant proportion presenting loss of joint space. Examined factors, excluding meniscectomy, were not correlated with the development of osteoarthritis.