Literature DB >> 27543681

Biomechanical Comparison: Single-Bundle versus Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques.

Jeffrey L Milles1, Clayton W Nuelle1, Ferris Pfeiffer1, James P Stannard1, Patrick Smith1, Mauricio Kfuri1, James L Cook1.   

Abstract

Controversy exists regarding double-bundle (DB) versus single-bundle (SB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction, with differences in multiple variables affecting biomechanical and clinical results. Our objective was to compare immediate postimplantation biomechanics of SB versus DB reconstructions to determine the relative importance of restoring both PCL bundles versus total graft volume. Twenty knees were randomly assigned to five techniques (n = 4 knees/technique), performed by three surgeons experienced in their technique(s), three SB techniques (n = 12; all-inside arthroscopic inlay, all-inside suspensory fixation, and arthroscopic-assisted open onlay), and two DB techniques (n = 8; arthroscopic-assisted open inlay and all-inside suspensory fixation). Each knee was tested in three conditions: PCL-intact, PCL-deficient, and post-PCL reconstruction. Testing consisted of a posterior-directed force at four knee flexion angles, 10, 30, 60, and 90 degrees, to measure load to 5 mm of posterior displacement, maximum displacement (at 100 N load), and stiffness. Data for each knee were normalized, combined into two groups (SB and DB), and then compared using one-way analysis of variance. Graft volumes were calculated and analyzed to determine if differences significantly influenced the biomechanical results. Intact knees were stiffer than both groups at most angles (p < 0.02; p < 0.05). DB was stiffer than SB at all angles except 30 degrees (p < 0.05). Intact knees had less laxity than SB (p < 0.03) and DB (p < 0.05) at 60 and 90 degrees. DB had less laxity than SB at all angles except 60 degrees (p < 0.05). Intact knees required more load than SB at 30, 60, and 90 degrees (p < 0.01) and more than DB at 60 and 90 degrees (p < 0.05). DB required more load than SB at 30, 60, and 90 degrees (p < 0.01). Graft volumes did not have strong correlations (r = 0.13-0.37) to any measurements. Neither group of PCL reconstruction techniques was able to replicate native PCL biomechanics. DB reconstructions were biomechanically superior to SB reconstructions; they may be preferred for clinical use when immediate post-reconstruction graft strength and stability are critical. These results were not strongly influenced by graft size differences, further supporting the PCL codominance theory. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27543681     DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1588014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Knee Surg        ISSN: 1538-8506            Impact factor:   2.757


  9 in total

Review 1.  [Posterior cruciate ligament injuries].

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

2.  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

3.  CORR Insights®: What Is the Maximum Tibial Tunnel Angle for Transtibial PCL Reconstruction? A Comparison Based on Virtual Radiographs, CT Images, and 3D Knee Models.

Authors:  Brian B Gilmer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Variations in common operations in athletes and non-Athletes.

Authors:  Amit Joshi; Bibek Basukala; Nagmani Singh; Sunil Panta; Rajiv Sharma; Ishor Pradhan
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-06-14

Review 5.  Graft Considerations in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

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

6.  Successful reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: assessment of posterior cruciate ligament footprints using an objective coordinate system.

Authors:  Ines Vielgut; Andreas Weiglein; Stefan M Biber; Manuel Dreu; Andreas Leithner; Goria Hohenberger; Patrick Sadoghi
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 1.246

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

Review 8.  Anteromedial versus transtibial technique in single-bundle autologous hamstring ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Haitao Chen; Kai Tie; Yongjian Qi; Bin Li; Biao Chen; Liaobin Chen
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 9.  Evolving evidence in the treatment of primary and recurrent posterior cruciate ligament injuries, part 1: anatomy, biomechanics and diagnostics.

Authors:  Philipp W Winkler; Bálint Zsidai; Nyaluma N Wagala; Jonathan D Hughes; Alexandra Horvath; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Kristian Samuelsson; Volker Musahl
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 4.342

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.