Transtibial Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Outcomes after Anatomic Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions Using Transtibial and Tibial Inlay Techniques

Surgical reconstruction is recommended for symptomatic posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) deficiency. While anatomic double-bundle PCL reconstruction (PCLR) has been reported to be associated with biomechanical and clinical advantages over other methods, there is still debate regarding the optimal technique for tibial positioning and fixation. Based on reported advantages and disadvantages, we employed two tibial fixation techniques, transtibial (TT) and tibial inlay (TI) for anatomic double-bundle PCLR with technique selection based on body mass index, comorbidities, and primary versus revision surgery. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes following PCLR utilizing either TT or TI techniques to validate relative advantages, disadvantages, and indications for each based on the review of prospectively collected registry data. For 37 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 26 underwent arthroscopic TT PCLR using all-soft- tissue allograft with suspensory fixation in the tibia and 11 patients underwent open TI PCLR using an allograft with calcaneal bone block and screw fixation in the tibia. There were no significant preoperative differences between cohorts. Success rates were 96% for TT and 91% for TI with all successful cases documented to be associated with good-to-excellent posterior stability and range of motion in the knee at the final follow-up. In addition, patient-reported outcome scores were within clinically meaningful ranges for pain, function, and mental health after PCLR in both cohorts, suggesting similarly favorable functional, social, and psychological outcomes. Patient-reported pain scores at 6 months postoperatively were significantly (p = 0.042) lower in the TT cohort, which was the only statistically significant difference in outcomes noted. The results of this study support the use of TT and TI techniques for double-bundle anatomic PCLR in restoring knee stability and patient function when used for the treatment of isolated and multiligamentous PCL injuries. The choice between tibial fixation methods for PCLR can be appropriately based on patient and injury characteristics that optimize respective advantages for each technique.

Biomechanical comparison of proximal, distal, and anatomic tibial tunnel for transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

No consensus has been reached on the optimal position of PCL tibial tunnel. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of proximal, distal and anatomic tibial tunnel in transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in-vitro model of transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was simulated using porcine tibias and bovine extensor tendons. Two models of biomechanical testing, load-to-failure loading, and cyclic loading, were performed in this study. The load-to-failure loading found that distal tibial tunnel resulted in greater ultimate load and yield load than the anatomic and proximal tunnel group (p < 0.05), whereas there were no significant differences in mean tensile stiffness among three groups (p > 0.05). The cyclic loading found no differences in the graft displacement at 250, 500, and 1000 cycles among three groups (p > 0.05). It was found that distal tibial tunnel showed superior ultimate load and yield load in load-to-failure loading testing compared with proximal and anatomic tibial tunnels, whereas no significant difference was found in terms of the mean displacement of the survived grafts in cyclic loading testing among three groups.