Literature DB >> 30233939

Anatomic Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Jorge Chahla1,2, Gilbert Moatshe1,3, Lars Engebretsen3, Robert F LaPrade1,2.   

Abstract

The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is the main posterior stabilizer of the knee. It is composed of 2 bundles, the larger anterolateral bundle (ALB) and the smaller posteromedial bundle (PMB). The 2 bundles were historically believed to function independently, with the ALB predominantly being an important stabilizer in flexion and the PMB being a stabilizer mainly in extension. However, a recent biomechanical study1 noted a codominant relationship between these 2 bundles. The anatomic single-bundle PCL reconstruction, focusing on reconstruction of the larger ALB, is the most commonly performed procedure. Because of the residual posterior and rotational tibial instability after a single-bundle reconstruction and the inability to restore the normal knee kinematics, an anatomic double-bundle PCL reconstruction has been proposed in an effort to recreate both bundles using the native footprint, thereby restoring the normal knee kinematics. The anatomic double-bundle PCL reconstruction has demonstrated improved subjective and objective patient outcomes with a low complication rate. Indications for PCL reconstruction are isolated symptomatic acute grade-III PCL tears, combined multiligament lesions, or acute grade-III PCL tears combined with repairable meniscal body or root tears. For chronic PCL tears, indications include functional limitations due to the PCL tear (e.g., difficulty with deceleration, incline descent, or stairs) and comparative PCL stress radiographic laxity of >8 mm in a symptomatic patient. The steps of this procedure include (1) correct patient positioning to allow for good accessibility of both sides of the joint; (2) graft preparation (Achilles tendon [ALB] and tibialis anterior [PMB] allografts are used); (3) creation of femoral tunnels (11 mm for the ALB adjacent to the cartilage and 7 mm for the PMB with a 2-mm bone bridge); (4) tibial tunnel creation (12-mm diameter, 7 mm anterior to the so-called champagne-glass drop-off); (5) graft fixation and tibial graft passage (a metal screw for the ALB and a bioabsorbable screw for the PMB, with the screws away from the bone bridge to avoid bone bridge breakage); and (6) tibial fixation (the grafts are independently fixed with the knee at 90° of flexion (ALB) and extension (PMB) with screws and washers on the medial side of the tibia. Three prospective randomized studies18,19,23 suggested that, while clinical outcomes are similar between both isolated transtibial reconstruction techniques, the objective measures of postoperative side-to-side posterior translation and objective International Knee Documentation Committee scores were significantly improved with double-bundle compared with single-bundle PCL reconstructions.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 30233939      PMCID: PMC6132593          DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.16.00083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech        ISSN: 2160-2204


  25 in total

1.  Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  C D Harner; M A Janaushek; A Kanamori; M Yagi; T M Vogrin; S L Woo
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 2.  Anatomy of the posterior cruciate ligament. A review.

Authors:  B A Van Dommelen; P J Fowler
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.202

3.  Isolated and combined grade-III posterior cruciate ligament tears treated with double-bundle reconstruction with use of endoscopically placed femoral tunnels and grafts: operative technique and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Stanislav I Spiridonov; Nathaniel J Slinkard; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Joint kinematics and in situ forces after single bundle PCL reconstruction: a graft placed at the center of the femoral attachment does not restore normal posterior laxity.

Authors:  Simon Lenschow; Thore Zantop; Andre Weimann; Thomas Lemburg; Michael Raschke; Michael Strobel; Wolf Petersen
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2005-11-05       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Function of posterior cruciate ligament bundles during in vivo knee flexion.

Authors:  Ramprasad Papannagari; Louis E DeFrate; Kyung W Nha; Jeremy M Moses; Mohamed Moussa; Thomas J Gill; Guoan Li
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 6.  Surgical treatment of posterior cruciate ligament tears: an evolving technique.

Authors:  Matthew J Matava; Evan Ellis; Brian Gruber
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.020

7.  Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the kneeling technique of stress radiography for the evaluation of posterior knee laxity.

Authors:  Todd Jackman; Robert F LaPrade; Thomas Pontinen; Paul A Lender
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Quantification of functional brace forces for posterior cruciate ligament injuries on the knee joint: an in vivo investigation.

Authors:  Robert F LaPrade; Sean D Smith; Katharine J Wilson; Coen A Wijdicks
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  A comparison of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstruction for isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury.

Authors:  Oog Jin Shon; Dong Chul Lee; Chul Hyun Park; Won Ho Kim; Kwang Am Jung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2010-05-04

Review 10.  Allograft versus autograft in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based systematic review.

Authors:  Joshua L Hudgens; Blake P Gillette; Aaron J Krych; Michael J Stuart; Jedediah H May; Bruce A Levy
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 2.757

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Combined Posterior Cruciate Ligament and Superficial Medial Collateral Ligament Knee Reconstruction: Avoiding Tunnel Convergence.

Authors:  Matthew D Crawford; Mitchell I Kennedy; David L Bernholt; Nicholas N DePhillipo; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2019-07-30

3.  Sequential Changes in Posterior Tibial Translation After Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Risk Factors for Residual Posterior Sagging.

Authors:  Yuta Tachibana; Yoshinari Tanaka; Kazutaka Kinugasa; Masayuki Hamada; Shuji Horibe
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-06-04
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.