Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Sep;90(9):1820-9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01366.

Double compared with single-bundle open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a cadaver model.

Author information

1
Bone and Joint/Sports Medicine Institute, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, 620 John Paul Jones Circle, Portsmouth, VA 23708, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is considerable controversy regarding whether a double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament is superior to single-bundle techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare posterior tibial translation and external rotation following double and single-bundle tibial inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament in both a posterolateral corner-deficient and a repaired cadaver model.

METHODS:

Posterior drawer testing, dial testing, and stress radiography were performed on nine cadaver knees. The intact knees served as controls. The posterior cruciate ligament and the posterolateral corner structures were resected, and each knee then underwent a double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. Following testing, both with and without the posterolateral corner repaired, the posteromedial bundle was released and the knee was retested with a single-bundle reconstruction.

RESULTS:

With dial testing, external rotation measured a mean (and standard error) of 7.6 degrees +/- 0.4 degrees at 30 degrees of knee flexion and 9.0 degrees +/- 0.8 degrees at 90 degrees after the double-bundle reconstruction with posterolateral corner repair, and it measured 11.2 degrees +/- 1.4 degrees at both 30 degrees and 90 degrees after the single-bundle reconstruction with posterolateral corner repair. When dial testing was performed after the double-bundle reconstruction without posterolateral corner repair, external rotation measured a mean of 15.8 degrees +/- 1.9 degrees at 30 degrees and 16.9 degrees +/- 2.0 degrees at 90 degrees; after the single-bundle reconstruction without posterolateral corner repair, it measured 20.1 degrees +/- 1.8 degrees at 30 degrees and 20.3 degrees +/- 1.7 degrees at 90 degrees. Without posterolateral corner repair, the double-bundle reconstruction permitted significantly less external rotation than did the single-bundle reconstruction at 30 degrees (p = 0.03). Stress radiography showed the mean posterior displacement after the double-bundle reconstruction with posterolateral corner repair to be 3.3 +/- 1.4 mm. This value was not significantly different from the mean posterior displacement of 4.8 +/- 1.0 mm after the single-bundle reconstruction with posterolateral corner repair, and both values were similar to that for the intact control (2.9 +/- 0.5 mm) (p = 0.254). However, the single-bundle reconstruction without posterolateral corner repair was associated with significantly increased posterior displacement when compared with the intact controls (p = 0.039) and with the double-bundle reconstruction without posterolateral corner repair (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS:

Double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament offers measurable benefits in terms of rotational stability and posterior translation in the setting of an untreated posterolateral corner injury. With the posterolateral corner intact, at time zero, the double-bundle reconstruction used in this study provided more rotational constraint to the knee at 30 degrees and it did not further reduce posterior translation.

PMID:
18762640
DOI:
10.2106/JBJS.G.01366
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center