Literature DB >> 27438377

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

Vineet Jain1, Ankit Goyal2, Mukul Mohindra2, Rahul Kumar2, Deepak Joshi2, Deepak Chaudhary2.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Knee; Posterior cruciate ligament; Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27438377     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-016-2512-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  9 in total

Review 1.  Single Versus Double-Bundle PCL Reconstruction: Scientific Rationale and Clinical Evidence.

Authors:  Christopher J Tucker; Patrick W Joyner; Nathan K Endres
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-06

Review 2.  [Posterior cruciate ligament injuries].

Authors:  K F Schüttler; E Ziring; S Ruchholtz; T Efe
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  Single and double bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yield comparable clinical and functional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nikolas L Krott; Lawrence Wengle; Daniel Whelan; Michael Wild; Marcel Betsch
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Anatomic is better than isometric posterior cruciate ligament tunnel placement based upon in vivo simulation.

Authors:  Willem A Kernkamp; Axel J T Jens; Nathan H Varady; Ewoud R A van Arkel; Rob G H H Nelissen; Peter D Asnis; Robert F LaPrade; Samuel K Van de Velde; Guoan Li
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  The biomechanical and histological effects of posterior cruciate ligament rupture on the medial tibial plateau.

Authors:  Zhenhan Deng; Yusheng Li; Zhangyuan Lin; Yong Zhu; Ruibo Zhao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Effect of Activity at Time of Injury and Concomitant Ligament Injuries on Patient-Reported Outcome After Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Christian Owesen; Jan-Harald Røtterud; Lars Engebretsen; Asbjørn Årøen
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-12-28

7.  Thick Graft Versus Double-Bundle Technique on Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Experimental Biomechanical Study with Cadavers.

Authors:  João Alberto Ramos Maradei-Pereira; Alexandre Estevão Vamos Kokron; César Augusto Martins Pereira; Marco Martins Amatuzzi
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2019-10-29

8.  Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Andrea Pintore; Filippo Spiezia; Francesco Oliva; Frank Hildebrand; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Hamstring, bone-patellar tendon-bone, quadriceps and peroneus longus tendon autografts for primary isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Andrea Pintore; Gianluca Vecchio; Francesco Oliva; Frank Hildebrand; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 5.841

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.