Kyoung Ho Yoon1, Jung-Suk Kim1, Jae-Young Park1, Soo Yeon Park2, Raymond Yeak Dieu Kiat3, Sang-Gyun Kim4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Physical Education, Graduate School of Education, Yongin University, Yongin-si, Gyeongki-do, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan-si, 123, Jeokgeum-ro, Danwon-Gu, Ansan-si, Gyeongki-do, Republic of Korea. mup81@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates between anatomical and high femoral tunnels in remnant-preserving single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. METHODS: 63 patients who underwent remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the femoral tunnel position: group A (33 patients with anatomical femoral tunnel) and group H (30 patients with high femoral tunnels). The femoral tunnel was positioned at the center (group A) or upper margin (group H) of the remnant anterolateral bundle. The position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated using the grid method on three-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates were compared between the groups at the 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The position of the femoral tunnel was significantly high in group H than in group A (87.4% ± 4.2% versus 76.1% ± 3.7%, p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups in terms of the clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores), range of motion, and posterior drawer test. Radiological outcomes also showed no intergroup differences in the side-to-side differences of posterior tibial translation and osteoarthritis progression. Side-to-side difference on the Telos stress radiograph was 5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A and 5.2 ± 2.7 mm in group H (n.s.). There were four failures in group A (12.1%) and one in group H (3.3%). The differences between the groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates of the high femoral tunnels were comparable with those of the anatomical femoral tunnels at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that high femoral tunnels can be considered an alternative in remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates between anatomical and high femoral tunnels in remnant-preserving single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. METHODS: 63 patients who underwent remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the femoral tunnel position: group A (33 patients with anatomical femoral tunnel) and group H (30 patients with high femoral tunnels). The femoral tunnel was positioned at the center (group A) or upper margin (group H) of the remnant anterolateral bundle. The position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated using the grid method on three-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates were compared between the groups at the 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The position of the femoral tunnel was significantly high in group H than in group A (87.4% ± 4.2% versus 76.1% ± 3.7%, p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups in terms of the clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores), range of motion, and posterior drawer test. Radiological outcomes also showed no intergroup differences in the side-to-side differences of posterior tibial translation and osteoarthritis progression. Side-to-side difference on the Telos stress radiograph was 5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A and 5.2 ± 2.7 mm in group H (n.s.). There were four failures in group A (12.1%) and one in group H (3.3%). The differences between the groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates of the high femoral tunnels were comparable with those of the anatomical femoral tunnels at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that high femoral tunnels can be considered an alternative in remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.