Christopher J Tucker1,2, Patrick W Joyner3, Nathan K Endres4. 1. Orthopedic Sports Medicine Service, Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, VA, USA. 2. Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Naples Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Naples, FL, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, McClure Musculoskeletal Research Center, University of Vermont, Robert T. Stafford Hall, 4th Floor, 95 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT, 05405-0084, USA. nathan.endres@med.uvm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this paper is to review the biomechanical and clinical rationale for single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The primary question is whether there has been demonstrated any clear biomechanical or clinical superiority of a double-bundle reconstruction over a single-bundle reconstruction. RECENT FINDINGS: There is some recent evidence demonstrating biomechanical superiority of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction; however, this is not definitive. Clinical superiority has not been clearly demonstrated as of yet. The primary question which served as the basis of this review remains unanswered. There is recent biomechanical data to suggest a potential benefit of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction, but not all studies are in agreement. Furthermore, the possible biomechanical advantages have not yet been borne out in clinical studies. At this point, we cannot clearly recommend one technique versus another and the decision should be left to the treating surgeon.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this paper is to review the biomechanical and clinical rationale for single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The primary question is whether there has been demonstrated any clear biomechanical or clinical superiority of a double-bundle reconstruction over a single-bundle reconstruction. RECENT FINDINGS: There is some recent evidence demonstrating biomechanical superiority of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction; however, this is not definitive. Clinical superiority has not been clearly demonstrated as of yet. The primary question which served as the basis of this review remains unanswered. There is recent biomechanical data to suggest a potential benefit of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction, but not all studies are in agreement. Furthermore, the possible biomechanical advantages have not yet been borne out in clinical studies. At this point, we cannot clearly recommend one technique versus another and the decision should be left to the treating surgeon.
Authors: Christopher S Ahmad; Zohara A Cohen; William N Levine; Thomas R Gardner; Gerard A Ateshian; Van C Mow Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: John A Bergfeld; Scott M Graham; Richard D Parker; Antonio D C Valdevit; Helen E Kambic Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-05-11 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jorge Chahla; Gilbert Moatshe; Mark E Cinque; Grant J Dornan; Justin J Mitchell; Taylor J Ridley; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Coen A Wijdicks; Nicholas I Kennedy; Mary T Goldsmith; Brian M Devitt; Max P Michalski; Asbjørn Årøen; Lars Engebretsen; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 6.202