Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 11/2016

01-11-2016 | Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine

A comparative analysis of arthroscopic double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft

Authors: Vineet Jain, Ankit Goyal, Mukul Mohindra, Rahul Kumar, Deepak Joshi, Deepak Chaudhary

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Anatomically, posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) consists of two bundles, i.e. anterolateral (AL) and posteromedial (PM) bundle. Single-bundle PCL (SBPCL) reconstruction remains most popular method of reconstruction, though double-bundle PCL (DBPCL) reconstruction is more anatomical. This study was done to analyse the clinical and functional outcome after both SBPCL and DBPCL reconstructions using autologous hamstring grafts.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including patients who underwent either DBPCL or SBPCL reconstruction for chronic symptomatic PCL injury. Clinical, functional and radiological evaluation was done pre-operatively and 3 months post-operatively and thereafter at every 6-month interval. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 24 months were included in the study. Pre-operative posterior translation was quantified by manual posterior drawer, KT 1000 measurement and stress radiography. Functional outcome was done using Lysholm and IKDC scores. MRI was done in all patients.

Results

Records of 40 patients were available with minimum follow-up of 24 months. Out of these, DBPCL reconstruction was done in 18 patients and SBPCL reconstruction was done in 22 patients. Four patients in DB (double-bundle PCL reconstruction) group and five in SB (single-bundle PCL reconstruction) group had more than grade I laxity by posterior drawer and on KT 1000 measurement DB group had average side-to-side difference of 1.78 mm and SB group 2.44 mm (p value = 0.0487). On functional assessment by Lysholm and IKDC score, there was significant improvement from pre-operative values in both the groups with no significant difference between the groups post-operatively. Stress radiography revealed significantly less post-translation in DB group as compared to SB group.

Conclusion

Though DBPCL reconstruction results in less posterior laxity, there is no difference in functional outcome of SBPCL and DBPCL reconstructions.

Level of evidence

III.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cooper DE, Warren RF, Warner JJP (1991) The posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral structures of the knee anatomy, functions and pattern of injury. Instr Course Lect 40:249–270 Cooper DE, Warren RF, Warner JJP (1991) The posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral structures of the knee anatomy, functions and pattern of injury. Instr Course Lect 40:249–270
2.
go back to reference Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ (2010) Current concepts review: the posterior cruciate ligament. J Knee Surg 23(2):61–72PubMedCrossRef Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ (2010) Current concepts review: the posterior cruciate ligament. J Knee Surg 23(2):61–72PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Deie M, Adachi N, Nakamae A, Takazawa K, Ochi M (2015) Evaluation of single-bundle versus double-bundle PCL reconstructions with more than 10-year follow up. Sci World J 2015:751465CrossRef Deie M, Adachi N, Nakamae A, Takazawa K, Ochi M (2015) Evaluation of single-bundle versus double-bundle PCL reconstructions with more than 10-year follow up. Sci World J 2015:751465CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Wang CJ, Weng LH, Hsu CC, Chan YS (2004) Arthroscopic single versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring autograft. Injury 35:1293–1299PubMedCrossRef Wang CJ, Weng LH, Hsu CC, Chan YS (2004) Arthroscopic single versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring autograft. Injury 35:1293–1299PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Houe T, Jorgensen U (2004) Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one- vs. two-tunnel technique. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14:107–111PubMedCrossRef Houe T, Jorgensen U (2004) Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one- vs. two-tunnel technique. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14:107–111PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fox RJ, Harner CD, Sakane M, Carlin GJ, Woo SL (1998) Determination of the in situ forces in the human posterior cruciate ligament using robotic technology. A cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 26:395–401PubMedCrossRef Fox RJ, Harner CD, Sakane M, Carlin GJ, Woo SL (1998) Determination of the in situ forces in the human posterior cruciate ligament using robotic technology. A cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 26:395–401PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Butler DL, Noyes FR, Grood ES (1980) Ligamentous restraints to anterior-posterior drawer in the human knee. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:259–270PubMed Butler DL, Noyes FR, Grood ES (1980) Ligamentous restraints to anterior-posterior drawer in the human knee. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:259–270PubMed
8.
go back to reference Kohen RB, Sekiya JK (2009) Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc 25(12):1470–1477 Kohen RB, Sekiya JK (2009) Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc 25(12):1470–1477
9.
go back to reference Race A, Amis AA (1998) PCL reconstruction: in vitro biomechanical comparison of “isometric” versus single- and double-bundled “anatomic” grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:173–179PubMedCrossRef Race A, Amis AA (1998) PCL reconstruction: in vitro biomechanical comparison of “isometric” versus single- and double-bundled “anatomic” grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:173–179PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Jackson SR, McAllister DR (2006) Biomechanical studies of double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1788–1794PubMedCrossRef Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Jackson SR, McAllister DR (2006) Biomechanical studies of double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1788–1794PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bergfeld JA, Graham SM, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE (2005) A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med 33:976–981PubMedCrossRef Bergfeld JA, Graham SM, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE (2005) A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med 33:976–981PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mannor DA, Shearn JT, Grood ES, Noyes FR, Levy MS (2000) Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro analysis of graft placement and tension. Am J Sports Med 28:833–845PubMed Mannor DA, Shearn JT, Grood ES, Noyes FR, Levy MS (2000) Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro analysis of graft placement and tension. Am J Sports Med 28:833–845PubMed
13.
go back to reference Yoon HK, Bae DK, Song Sang, Jun Cho H, Lee Hwan (2011) A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers. Am J Sports Med 39:474–481PubMedCrossRef Yoon HK, Bae DK, Song Sang, Jun Cho H, Lee Hwan (2011) A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers. Am J Sports Med 39:474–481PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Becker R, Ropke M, Nebelung W (1999) Clinical outcome of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament-plasty. Unfallchirurg 102:354–358PubMedCrossRef Becker R, Ropke M, Nebelung W (1999) Clinical outcome of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament-plasty. Unfallchirurg 102:354–358PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparative analysis of arthroscopic double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft
Authors
Vineet Jain
Ankit Goyal
Mukul Mohindra
Rahul Kumar
Deepak Joshi
Deepak Chaudhary
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2512-y

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 11/2016 Go to the issue