Literature DB >> 30753096

Minimum 10-Year Results of Single- Versus Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical, Radiologic, and Survivorship Outcomes.

Kyoung Ho Yoon1, Eung Ju Kim1, Yoo Beom Kwon1, Sang-Gyun Kim1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biomechanical studies have shown that double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) is better than single-bundle (SB) PCLR in restoring normal biomechanical function and stability. However, most clinical studies report no differences between the technical methods, and there is yet no long-term clinical comparative study. HYPOTHESIS: DB PCLR would show superior results and survivorship outcomes to those of SB PCLR in long-term follow-up. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively evaluated 64 patients who underwent primary PCLR between 2000 and 2008 and were followed up for a minimum of 10 years: 28 patients underwent SB PCLR (mean ± SD: age, 29.1 ± 12.2 years), and 36 underwent DB PCLR (age, 27.0 ± 9.2 years). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score), side-to-side difference in stress radiographs, osteoarthritis progression, and survival rate were compared between the SB and DB groups at the last follow-up.
RESULTS: At the final follow-up, all clinical scores showed no significant differences between the SB and DB groups. The mean side-to-side difference in stress radiographs (SB, 5.3 ± 3.5 mm; DB, 5.0 ± 3.8 mm; P = .828) and osteoarthritis progression (SB, 14.3%; DB, 13.9%; P = .964) were not different between the groups. The 15-year survival rate was 82.1% for SB PCLR and 83.7% for DB PCLR.
CONCLUSION: Both the SB and DB techniques for PCLR showed satisfactory long-term clinical results and survivorship outcomes. There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCLR in clinical, radiologic, and survivorship outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DB PCLR did not show superior clinical results to those of SB PCLR in the long-term follow-up. These results should be considered in the surgical planning for PCLR.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical outcome; double-bundle; posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; single-bundle; survivorship

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30753096     DOI: 10.1177/0363546518825257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  11 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

Review 2.  Operative management of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries improves stability and reduces the incidence of secondary osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Wouter Schroven; G Vles; J Verhaegen; M Roussot; J Bellemans; S Konan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Global variation in isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

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

4.  Four-Tunnel Double-Bundle Anatomical Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Without Remnant Preservation.

Authors:  Jinzhong Zhao
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2021-08-09

5.  Comparable Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between an Anatomic Tunnel and a Low Tibial Tunnel in Remnant-Preserving Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Kyoung Ho Yoon; Jung-Suk Kim; Jae-Young Park; Soo Yeon Park; Raymond Yeak Dieu Kiat; Sang-Gyun Kim
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-02-23

6.  Posterior cruciate ligament injuries: what do we really know?

Authors:  Philipp W Winkler; Jonathan D Hughes; James J Irrgang; Jón Karlsson; Volker Musahl
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Clinical and functional outcomes of isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients over the age of 40 years.

Authors:  Chia-Hung Liu; Chih-Hao Chiu; Shih-Sheng Chang; Wen-Ling Yeh; Alvin Chao-Yu Chen; Kuo-Yao Hsu; Chun-Jui Weng; Yi-Sheng Chan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-05       Impact factor: 2.362

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.  Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) synthetic graft for PCL reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Andrea Pintore; Gianluca Vecchio; Francesco Oliva; Frank Hildebrand; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 5.841

Review 10.  Evolving evidence in the treatment of primary and recurrent posterior cruciate ligament injuries, part 2: surgical techniques, outcomes and rehabilitation.

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:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.