Clinical outcomes of rectangular tunnel technique in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were comparable to the results of conventional round tunnel technique

Author(s):  
Seong Hwan Kim ◽  
Woo-Sung Kim ◽  
Boo-Seop Kim ◽  
Hyun-Soo Ok ◽  
Jong-Heon Kim ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2789-2797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong-Yeong Lee ◽  
Dong-Hee Kim ◽  
Hyun-Jung Kim ◽  
Hyeong-Sik Ahn ◽  
Tae-Ho Lee ◽  
...  

Background: Transtibial (TT) or tibial inlay (TI) techniques are commonly used for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR). However, the optimum method for PCLR after PCL injury remains debatable. Hypothesis/Purpose: The hypothesis was that TT and TI techniques would not show significant differences for all outcome measures. The purpose was to determine the biomechanical and clinical outcomes of TT and TI surgical techniques for PCLR. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases for articles published up until August 2016 were searched to find relevant articles comparing outcomes of TT versus TI techniques for PCLR. Data searching, extraction, analysis, and quality assessment were performed according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Biomechanical outcomes and clinical outcomes of both techniques were compared. Results are presented as risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Five biomechanical and 5 clinical studies were included. No significant biomechanical differences were found regarding posterior tibial translation (PTT) at a knee flexion angle of 90° or PTT after cyclic loading between the 2 groups. However, a stronger in situ force in the graft was detected in the TT group (WMD = 15.58; 95% CI, 0.22-30.95; I2 = 10%). Although no significant differences were found in clinical outcomes such as Lysholm knee function score, Tegner activity score, side-to-side difference, or posterior drawer test at final follow-up between the 2 groups, the TT technique tended to entail fewer perioperative complications than the TI technique (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.00; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: TT and TI techniques for PCLR can both restore normal knee kinematics and improve knee function. However, the issue of which yields better improvement in stability and functional recovery of the knee remains unclear. More high-quality trials and randomized controlled trials are needed. Although PCLR via the TT technique resulted in higher graft forces, determining whether this is clinically significant will require further studies. When performing the TI technique, surgeons should inform patients of the risk of complications.


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 1752-1757 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Belk ◽  
Matthew J. Kraeutler ◽  
Justin M. Purcell ◽  
Eric C. McCarty

Background: Multiple studies have demonstrated a higher risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft, but limited data are available comparing outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) with autograft versus allograft. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of autograft versus allograft for primary PCLR. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to locate studies (level of evidence I-III) comparing clinical outcomes of autograft versus allograft in patients undergoing primary PCLR with the conventional transtibial technique. Search terms used were “posterior cruciate ligament,” “autograft,” and “allograft.” Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rate, examination of knee laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (Lysholm, Tegner, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], and objective IKDC scores). Results: Five studies (2 level II, 3 level III) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 132 patients undergoing PCLR with autograft (semitendinosus-gracilis or bone–patellar tendon–bone) and 110 patients with allograft (tibialis anterior, Achilles tendon, or bone–patellar tendon–bone). No patients experienced graft failure. Average anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity was significantly higher in allograft patients (3.8 mm) compared with autograft patients (3.1 mm) ( P < .01). Subjective IKDC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores improved for both groups across studies, without a significant difference in improvement between groups except in one study, in which Lysholm scores improved to a significantly greater extent in the autograft group ( P < .01). Conclusion: Patients undergoing primary PCLR with either autograft or allograft can be expected to experience improvement in clinical outcomes. Autograft patients experienced less AP knee laxity postoperatively, although the clinical significance of this is unclear and subjective outcomes improved substantially and to a similar degree in both groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document