Jorge Chahla1, Gilbert Moatshe2, Mark E Cinque1, Grant J Dornan1, Justin J Mitchell3, Taylor J Ridley4, Robert F LaPrade5. 1. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A. 2. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.; Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 3. Gundersen Health System, Department of Sports Medicine, La Crosse, Wisconsin, U.S.A. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A. 5. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.; The Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.. Electronic address: drlaprade@sprivail.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review on the techniques and a meta-analysis on the functional and objective outcomes after single-bundle (SB) versus double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstructions. METHODS: A systematic review of the techniques, as well as functional and objective outcomes of clinical studies comparing SB versus DB PCL reconstruction with a mean follow-up of at least 24 months and minimum level of evidence of III were performed. After review of the literature, a quality analysis of the studies (Detsky score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between SB and DB PCL groups were performed. Clinical outcome measures included in the meta-analysis were functional outcomes (Lysholm, Tegner, and objective International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] scores) and objective measurements (arthrometer and stress radiographs). RESULTS: The systematic search identified 11 studies (441 patients). Three studies were prospective randomized controlled trials and the other 8 studies were case-control studies. Two hundred thirty-two patients were treated with SB PCL reconstruction, whereas 209 were treated with DB PCL reconstruction. Only 4 studies satisfied the threshold for a satisfactory level of methodologic quality (>75%). There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCL reconstructions in postoperative Lysholm (P = .6, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98, 2.18) or Tegner scores (P = .37, 95% CI, -0.19, 0.92). DB PCL reconstruction provided significantly better objective posterior tibial translation stability than the SB technique using the Telos technique at 90° (P = -.58, 95% CI, -1.06, -0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Improved patient-reported outcomes and knee stability were achieved with both SB and DB PCL reconstruction surgery. DB PCL reconstruction provided significantly improved objective posterior tibial stability and objective IKDC scores when compared with SB PCL reconstruction in randomized clinical trials. No significant difference was found for the other patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis of Level II and III studies.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review on the techniques and a meta-analysis on the functional and objective outcomes after single-bundle (SB) versus double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstructions. METHODS: A systematic review of the techniques, as well as functional and objective outcomes of clinical studies comparing SB versus DB PCL reconstruction with a mean follow-up of at least 24 months and minimum level of evidence of III were performed. After review of the literature, a quality analysis of the studies (Detsky score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between SB and DB PCL groups were performed. Clinical outcome measures included in the meta-analysis were functional outcomes (Lysholm, Tegner, and objective International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] scores) and objective measurements (arthrometer and stress radiographs). RESULTS: The systematic search identified 11 studies (441 patients). Three studies were prospective randomized controlled trials and the other 8 studies were case-control studies. Two hundred thirty-two patients were treated with SB PCL reconstruction, whereas 209 were treated with DB PCL reconstruction. Only 4 studies satisfied the threshold for a satisfactory level of methodologic quality (>75%). There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCL reconstructions in postoperative Lysholm (P = .6, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98, 2.18) or Tegner scores (P = .37, 95% CI, -0.19, 0.92). DB PCL reconstruction provided significantly better objective posterior tibial translation stability than the SB technique using the Telos technique at 90° (P = -.58, 95% CI, -1.06, -0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Improved patient-reported outcomes and knee stability were achieved with both SB and DB PCL reconstruction surgery. DB PCL reconstruction provided significantly improved objective posterior tibial stability and objective IKDC scores when compared with SB PCL reconstruction in randomized clinical trials. No significant difference was found for the other patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis of Level II and III studies.
Authors: Santiago Pache; Zachary S Aman; Mitchell Kennedy; Gilberto Yoshinobu Nakama; Gilbert Moatshe; Connor Ziegler; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2018-01
Authors: Derrick M Knapik; Varun Gopinatth; Garrett R Jackson; Jorge Chahla; Matthew V Smith; Matthew J Matava; Robert H Brophy Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2022-10-09
Authors: Christopher J Tucker; Eric J Cotter; Brian R Waterman; Kelly G Kilcoyne; Kenneth L Cameron; Brett D Owens Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-10-11