Arthroscopic Transtibial PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes

Retrospective cohort study comparing postoperative joint stability between all-inside PCL reconstruction technique and conventional PCL reconstruction technique in patients with multiligament knee injury

Objectives

The purpose of our study was to compare (1) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) laxity, (2) patient-reported outcome, and (3) complications after the all-inside PCL reconstruction (Al-PCLR) technique and conventional PCLR (CON-PCLR) technique at minimum 2-year follow-up. We hypothesized that AI-PCLR and CONV-PCLR would yield similar results in PCL laxity, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.

Method

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent PCLR with the Al-PCLR technique and CON-PCLR technique from 2012 to 2023 in a single hospital. Medical records were reviewed for patients' demographic data, the technique of PCL reconstruction and complications. Patient-reported outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner activity scale, and Lysholm score, as well as bilateral kneeling radiographs and physical examinations, were collected at least 2 years postoperatively.

Results

Included in the study were 24 patients: 11 who underwent the CON-PCLR technique (mean age 40.7 +years) and 13 who underwent Al-PCLR (mean age 34.3 + 12.9 years). Three patients in AI-PCLR group were lost to follow-up and one patient is the CON-PCLR group, a revision case, was excluded from the study.Bilateral stress kneeling radiographs showed a similar side-to-side difference between two groups (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: mean 7.5 ± 5.2 vs 5.8 ± 4.8 mm; P = 0.38) There were no statically significant differences between the two groups in postoperative IKDC (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: 68.9 vs 73.9; P = 0.37), Lysholm (89.1 vs 94.1; P = 0.42), or Tegner activity (6 vs 6.4; P = 0.68) scores.

Conclusion

All-inside PCLR demonstrates comparable stability to Conventional PCLR, with satisfactory patient-report outcome at minimum 2 years follow up and low rate of complications in patients with multiligament knee injury.Level of evidence: III Retrospective comparative study.

Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes Following PCL Suture Augmentation in Patients with Multiligamentous Knee Injury: A Retrospective Observational Study

Purpose

To compare the patient-reported outcomes between patients with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction or repair alone versus PCL reconstruction or repair with internal bracing (IB) in the context of multi-ligament knee injuries (MLKI).

Methods

All patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and offered participation in the study. Patient reported outcomes were measured via three instruments: Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the internal bracing and non-internal bracing groups.

Results

Fifty-two patients were analyzed; 34 were included in the IB group (17.6% female; age 33.1 ±1.60 years), and 18 were included in the non-IB group (11.1% female; age 34.1 ±3.72 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 1.44 ± 0.22 years (IB: 1.21 ± 0.18; non-IB: 2.1 ±0.65). There were no significant differences between PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (54.4 ±1.78 vs 51.7 ±1.70, p=0.319), Physical Function (44.3 ±2.27 vs 47.9 ±1.52, p=0.294), Mobility (44.0 ±1.71 vs 46.1 ±2.10, p=0.463)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (40.7 ±4.21 vs 41.7±5.10, p=0.884), Emotional Impairment (49.2 ±4.88 vs 44.7±5.87, p=0.579), Activity Limitation (43.5 ±4.56 vs 31.5±3.62, p=0.087), Societal Involvement (44.9 ±4.96 vs 37.5 ±5.30, p=0.345)] and Lysholm knee score (61.8 ±4.55 vs 61.0 ±4.95, p=0.916) postoperatively compared to the non-IB group.

Conclusion

In this group of patients, function and patient-reported outcomes between patients treated with PCL reconstruction and repair without internal brace versus those with additional internal brace augmentation were not significantly different. Further research encompassing a larger patient sample is necessary to investigate the efficacy of the internal brace for PCL injury in the context of MLKI injuries.

THE OUTCOMES OF POSTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT TIBIAL AVULSION FIXATION WITH A SCREW USING A DUAL POSTEROMEDIAL PORTAL TECHNIQUE

Objectives

Our purpose was to evaluate the clinical results of PCL tibial avulsion fracture fixation performed with 4 mm cancellous screws using a dual posteromedial (PM) portal technique.

Methods

In a prospective study, we followed 12 patients submitted to PCL tibial insertion avulsion arthroscopic fixation using dual PM portals with cancellous screws from March 2014 to Jan 2020. The proximal higher PM portal served as an instrument portal and provided an optimal trajectory for arthroscopic screw fixation of larger PCL avulsion fractures. The lower PM portal was used as a viewing portal.

Results

Significant improvements were found between the preoperative and postoperative mean Lysholm scores at six months. The preoperative IKDC score mean of 10.13 increased to 89.3 at the end of six months. Minor adverse results with this technique were: grade I on posterior sag in five knees (41.6%), temporary stiffness in two cases (16.7 %), delayed union in one patient (8.3 %), and difficulty squatting at the end of six months in one patient (8.3%). Temporary extension lag was present in two individuals (16.7%), and fixed subtle flexion deficit of 3-5 degrees occurred in one individual (8.3 %).

Conclusion

The outcomes obtained with the proposed technique were similar to those obtained with open techniques, although mild flexion deficits and discreet posterior sag may be present in a significant number of cases. Level of Evidence II; Prospective Cohort Study .

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

Isolated and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries are associated with severe limitations in daily, professional, and sports activities as well as with devastating long-term effects for the knee joint. As the number of primary and recurrent PCL injuries increases, so does the body of literature, with high-quality evidence evolving in recent years. However, the debate about the ideal treatment approach such as; operative vs. non-operative; single-bundle vs. double-bundle reconstruction; transtibial vs. tibial inlay technique, continues. Ultimately, the goal in the treatment of PCL injuries is restoring native knee kinematics and preventing residual posterior and combined rotatory knee laxity through an individualized approach. Certain demographic, anatomical, and surgical risk factors for failures in operative treatment have been identified. Failures after PCL reconstruction are increasing, confronting the treating surgeon with challenges including the need for revision PCL reconstruction. Part 2 of the evidence-based update on the management of primary and recurrent PCL injuries will summarize the outcomes of operative and non-operative treatment including indications, surgical techniques, complications, and risk factors for recurrent PCL deficiency. This paper aims to support surgeons in decision-making for the treatment of PCL injuries by systematically evaluating underlying risk factors, thus preventing postoperative complications and recurrent knee laxity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.