Next Article in Journal
Unlocking the Therapeutic Potential of Freshwater Sapropel Extracts: In Vitro Analysis and Antioxidant Profiling for Skincare Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
Osteoarthritis Development Following Meniscectomy vs. Meniscal Repair for Posterior Medial Meniscus Injuries: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Elucidating the Diagnostic Complexity of Round Cell Sarcoma with EWSR1-CREM Fusion: A Comprehensive Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Association of Acetabulum Fracture and Mechanism of Injury with BMI, Days Spent in Hospital, Blood Loss, and Surgery Time: A Retrospective Analysis of 67 Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 60
Issue 4
10.3390/medicina60040545
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Anatomic versus Low Tibial Tunnel in Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

by
Chung-Yu Chen
1,
Chen-Heng Hsu
1,
Poyu Chen
2,
Kuo-Yao Hsu
3,
Cheng-Pang Yang
1,
Huan Sheu
4,
Shih-Sheng Chang
4 and
Chih-Hao Chiu
1,5,6,7,*
1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
2
Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
3
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New Taipei Municipal Tucheng Hospital, New Taipei City 236, Taiwan
4
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Taoyuan Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
5
Bone and Joint Research Center, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
6
Comprehensive Sports Medicine Center (CSMC), Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
7
College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2024, 60(4), 545; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60040545
Submission received: 2 March 2024 / Revised: 20 March 2024 / Accepted: 26 March 2024 / Published: 27 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Update on Orthopedic Surgeries of the Lower Extremity Diseases and Injuries: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of double-bundle PCL reconstruction utilizing anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent double-bundle PCL reconstruction between Jan 2019 and Jan 2022, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (n = 36). Based on the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, patients were categorized into two groups: anatomic placement (group A; n = 18) and low tunnel placement (group L; n = 18). We compared the range of motion, stability test, complications, and side-to-side differences in tibial posterior translation using kneeling stress radiography between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding clinical outcomes or complication rates. No significant differences in the posterior drawer test and side-to-side difference on kneeling stress radiography (2.5 ± 1.2 mm in group A vs. 3.7 ± 2.0 mm in group L; p = 0.346). In conclusion, the main findings of this study indicate that both anatomic tunnel and low tibial tunnel placements in double-bundle PCL reconstruction demonstrated comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiologic outcomes, with similar overall complication rates at the 2-year follow-up.

1. Introduction

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tears represent significant injuries, with the potential for long-term consequences on the knee joint. These injuries often occur as a result of high-energy trauma, such as motor vehicle or sports-related accidents, with a male predominance and an average age at injury around the third decade of life [1,2]. Despite the fact that PCL insufficiency has a relatively low incidence compared to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, estimated at approximately 2 per 100,000 persons annually, recent research indicates that conservative treatment approaches may increase the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. This heightened risk can stem from factors such as severe PCL laxity or the progression of meniscus tears [3,4,5].
With an evolving understanding of the anatomy and biomechanics of the PCL and advances in surgical techniques, arthroscopic PCL reconstruction has become a widely adopted treatment for individuals with PCL insufficiency [6]. However, historical data indicated that the outcomes of PCL reconstruction were less predictable and led to inferior results when compared to ACL reconstruction [7,8]. A systematic review of single-bundle PCL reconstructions demonstrated an overall graft failure rate of 12.5%. Moreover, only 50 to 82% of patients undergoing PCL reconstruction managed to return to their preinjury activity level [9]. However, since Kennedy et al. reported a codominant relationship between the anterolateral bundle (ALB) and the posteromedial bundle (PMB) of the PCL in resisting posterior tibial translation at all flexion angles, there has been an increasing trend towards double-bundle PCL reconstruction [10]. Recently, numerous randomized controlled studies and systematic reviews with meta-analysis have demonstrated that anatomic-based double-bundle PCL reconstruction can restore the native biomechanics of the intact knee closely and yield superior objective outcomes compared to single-bundle reconstruction [11,12,13,14,15].
Meanwhile, the acute angle of the graft at the tibial tunnel exit, commonly referred to as the “killer turn,” has been identified as one of the primary factors contributing to the residual laxity and graft failure of transtibial PCL reconstruction [16,17,18]. To reduce the “killer turn” effect and improve the clinical efficacy of PCL reconstruction, several techniques have been proposed. These include high tibial osteotomy, the modified tibial tunnel technique, which creates a tibial tunnel from the anterior lateral side of the tibia, preserving remnants as a soft tissue cushion, and utilizing inlay or onlay techniques that do not require a tibial tunnel [19,20,21,22,23,24]. Fanelli et al. introduced a technique involving the placement of the tibial tunnel lower in relation to the footprint, situated below the champagne glass drop-off. This innovative approach aimed to mitigate the sharpness of the killer turn by breaking it into two gentler angles [25,26]. Subsequent long-term follow-up studies have reported positive clinical and functional outcomes associated with this technique [27,28].
Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, clinical outcomes comparing the anatomic tibial tunnel (above the champagne glass drop-off) and low tibial tunnel (below the champagne glass drop-off) placements in double-bundle PCL reconstruction have not been reported yet. The primary aim of this study was to assess and compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of double-bundle PCL reconstructions utilizing anatomic and low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that at the 2-year follow-up, low tibial tunnel placement would have superior outcomes compared to anatomic tibial tunnel placement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Enrollment and Study Design

After obtaining the approval of ethics committee from the Institutional Review Board for this study, we conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent double-bundle PCL reconstruction in our hospital between January 2019 and January 2022 for inclusion in this study. The diagnosis of PCL injury was confirmed through physical examination, assessment of side-to-side difference (STSD) in posterior tibial translation using kneeling stress radiography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants enrolled in this study.
PCL reconstruction was recommended for patients exhibiting more than 8 mm of STSD in posterior tibial translation, as measured through preoperative stress radiography, and in cases where nonoperative treatment had proven ineffective [29]. In our practice, the favored indications for low tibial tunnel placement included young individuals with high activity, lower BMI, or greater preoperative STSD. However, the final decision was made with respect to the preference and consideration of each patient and surgeon. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) single-bundle PCL reconstruction, (2) multiligament injury requiring combined ligament surgery, (3) revision PCL reconstruction, (4) fractures around the ipsilateral knee, (5) bilateral PCL injury, and (6) advanced-stage knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren–Lawrence grade 3 and 4). A total of 128 patients were initially assessed for this study. Among them, 41 patients met the aforementioned criteria. Of the 41 patients, 5 patients were excluded due to loss to follow-up or incomplete radiologic data at the 2-year period. Ultimately, 36 patients were enrolled in this study (Figure 1).

2.2. Surgical Technique

The arthroscopic double-bundle PCL reconstruction technique was performed with Achilles tendon allografts described as in a previous study [8]. Under the visualization via a posteromedial portal, the PCL tibial footprint was identified and debrided along the PCL facet distally, approximately 10 mm below the champagne glass drop-off. An Acufex PCL tibial guide (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA, USA) was introduced through the anteromedial portal. For the anatomic tibial tunnel placement, the desired guide pin positions were the inferior and lateral corners of the native PCL tibial footprint. For the low tibial tunnel placement, the target position for the guide pin was 5–10 mm below the champagne glass drop-off, with the same medial-to-lateral dimension as the anatomic tibial tunnel. Subsequently, the guide pin was over-drilled with a 12 mm cannulated reamer to create the tibial tunnel.
To prepare the femoral tunnel, the Acufex PCL femoral guide (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA, USA) was introduced through the anteromedial portal. The guide pins were inserted in an outside-in fashion. The anterolateral bundle (ALB) was centered between the trochlear and medial arch points, and the posteromedial bundle (PMB) was positioned in front of the medial intercondylar ridge, about 6 mm offset from the cartilage edge [30]. A bone bridge (approximately 8 mm) between the femoral tunnels was ensured before drilling [28]. ALB and PMB femoral tunnels were over-drilled with 9 mm and 8 mm reamers, respectively. Grafts were retrogradely passed from the tibial to the femoral tunnels. Primary fixation used bioabsorbable interference screws (Linvatec BioScrew; ConMed, Largo, FL, USA). Femoral ALB fixation was at 90° knee flexion with maximal anterior tibial translation, and PMB was fixed at 0° knee extension [31]. Tibial backup fixation employed two 4.5 mm cortical screws with washers.

2.3. Postoperative Rehabilitation

Following the surgery, PCL dynamic braces were applied immediately to all the patients, exerting dynamically increasing force with increased flexion angle [32]. It was recommended that the brace should be worn at all times for a minimum of 24 weeks. The patients were encouraged to engage in quadriceps isometric contraction training. In the initial 4 weeks post-surgery, partial weight bearing and limited flexion up to 90° were permitted. Full weight bearing and unrestricted range of motion were allowed after 6 weeks. Patients could resume daily activities without the PCL dynamic brace after 6 months, and sports activities were permitted at 12 months post-surgery [33]. Moreover, this protocol remained applicable regardless of intervention for meniscus tears.

2.4. Evaluation of Tibial Tunnel Position on 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography (3D-CT)

Postoperative CT scans were performed for all patients within one month post-PCL reconstruction. To categorize patients based on tibial tunnel position, the sagittal view of the proximal tibia and 3D-CT were examined to pinpoint the center of the tibial tunnel. Patients were assigned to either the anatomic group (group A) or the low tunnel group (group L) based on whether the center of the tibial tunnel was located above or below the champagne glass drop-off, respectively (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
The acquired image datasets were reconstructed into 3D-CT. The tibial tunnel positions were assessed in the medial-to-lateral (ML) and proximal-to-distal (PD) directions of the proximal tibia, as described by Shin et al. [34]. Measurements included the absolute distance from the medial margin of the tibial plateau to the tunnel center in the medial-to-lateral direction and the absolute distance from the posterior margin of the tibial plateau to the tunnel center in the proximal-to-distal direction (Figure 4). To standardize measurement across different knee sizes, relative percentages were computed. This involved dividing the absolute medial-to-lateral distance by the width of the tibial plateau and dividing the absolute proximal-to-distal distance by the distance between the posterior margin of tibial plateau and the champagne glass drop-off.

2.5. Patient Demographics, Clinical and Radiologic Measurements, and Complications

The preoperative demographic included age at time of surgery, sex, body mass index (BMI), and concomitant meniscus injury. The clinical and radiologic outcomes and stability were assessed preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up. The clinical evaluations, including the range of motion (ROM) using a goniometer and knee joint stability classified by the posterior drawer test, were conducted by experienced orthopedic surgeons at the outpatient clinic. The patient-reported outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity scale, were assessed preoperatively at the time of hospital admission and again at the final follow-up through interviews with the patients by an independent research assistant.
Radiologic measurement included the hip–knee–ankle angle, posterior tibia slope, and the STSD in posterior tibial translation on kneeling stress radiographs. The posterior tibial slope was assessed on true lateral radiographs of the knee using the method originally described by Dejour et al. [35]. The proximal anatomic axis of the tibia was determined by two midpoints between the anterior and posterior tibial cortex, which were located 5 and 10 cm distal to the joint line. A reference line was drawn perpendicular to the proximal anatomic axis of the tibia at the level of the joint line. The posterior tibial slope is defined as the angle between a tangent line connecting to the uppermost anterior and posterior edges of the medial tibial plateau and the reference line.
The measurement of STSD in posterior tibial translation on kneeling stress radiographs, as a main outcome of this study, is illustrated in Figure 5 [36,37]. All radiologic measurements were conducted twice, with a 1-week interval, by two clinical fellows who were blinded to the group allocations.
Postoperative complications, including graft failure, neurovascular injury, compartment syndrome, hemarthrosis, infection, stiffness, and heterotopic calcification were compared between the groups [38,39]. Graft failure was defined by meeting any of the following criteria: (1) the necessity for additional surgery (revision PCL reconstruction, high tibial osteotomy, or arthroplasty) due to unrelieved symptoms, (2) complete graft tear shown on MRI scans, or (3) grade III posterior drawer test or STSD > 10 mm on stress radiographs [40]. Stiffness was identified in patients with loss of >5° of full extension and <120° of knee flexion [41].

2.6. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed by use of SPSS Version 25.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Quantitative variables were presented as mean and SD. For between-group comparisons, the Mann–Whitney U test was applied to compare quantitative variables, while categorical data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was regarded as indicative of statistical significance.
A power analysis was performed to determine the sample size required to demonstrate statistical significance. To detect between-group difference in STSD on kneeling stress radiographs, the anticipated STSD on the kneeling stress radiographs of group A and group L was set at 5 mm and 3 mm, respectively, and the standard deviation (SD) was set at 2 mm [40,42]. Alpha was set at 0.05 and the power was set at 0.8. Calculations showed that a minimum sample size of 32 patients (16 patients per group) was required.
To evaluate the interobserver and intraobserver reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was evaluated for tibial tunnel position and posterior tibial translation measurements. The reliability was defined by ICC values, where values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively [43].

3. Results

3.1. Preoperative Demographic, Clinical, and Radiologic Data

According to the tibial tunnel positions above or below the champagne glass drop-off on the sagittal view of the proximal tibia, 36 patients were categorized into two groups: anatomic tibial tunnel (group A, n = 18) and low tibial tunnel (group L, n = 18). The preoperative demographic, clinical, and radiologic data are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Tibial Tunnel Position on 3D-CT Scan

In the medial-to-lateral dimension, there was no significant difference in the tibial tunnel positions between the two groups (47.6% in group A vs. 44.5% in group L; p = 0.776). Nonetheless, in the proximal-to-distal dimension, the anatomic tibial tunnel was positioned 10.4 mm above the champagne glass drop-off, whereas the low tibial tunnel was 6.7 mm below the champagne glass drop-off. Both the absolute distance and percentage in the proximal-to-distal dimension displayed statistically significant differences between the groups (12.5 mm in group A vs. 29.1 mm in group L, p < 0.001; 54.6% in group A vs. 130.6% in group L, p < 0.001) (Table 2). Overall, group L exhibited an average 16.6 mm more distal tibial tunnel position without a medial-to-lateral difference compared to group A. The ICC values for interobserver and intraobserver reliability of all tibial tunnel position measurements were greater than 0.75.

3.3. Postoperative Outcomes and Complications

At the 2-year follow-up, the patient-reported outcomes and ranges of motion were not significantly different between the two groups. All patients achieved a knee range of motion greater than or equal to 130° flexion without >5° loss to full extension (Table 3). Stability test results, including posterior drawer tests and STSD on kneeling stress radiographs, did not show any statistically significant differences between the groups (2.5 mm in group A vs. 3.7 mm in group L; p = 0.346). The ICC values for interobserver and intraobserver reliability were 0.760 and 0.791, respectively, both of which indicated good reliability.
In group A, one patient experienced transient foot drop postoperatively, fully recovering after 3 months of physical therapy, while another patient had surgical wound infection. In group L, one patient presented with hemarthrosis at 6 weeks after surgery. In addition, there was a patient who had incidental findings of a small amount of heterotopic calcification in the popliteal fossa on the CT scan follow-up (Figure 6), without complaining of symptoms or motion loss. No progression of the calcification was noted on plain films during the 2-year-follow-up period. No other complications, such as graft failure, compartment syndrome, or stiffness, were observed in either group. Overall, the incidence of postoperative complications did not show statistically significant differences between the groups (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The primary finding of this study was that the clinical outcomes and stability tests were not significantly different between patients who underwent PCL reconstruction with anatomic tibial tunnels and low tibial tunnels. The STSDs on kneeling stress radiographs, the primary outcome of this study, were satisfactory in both groups and did not show significant difference at the 2-year follow-up. Furthermore, there were no significant differences observed in the patient-reported outcomes, including the IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity scale, as well as in range of motion, posterior drawer test results, or the incidence of overall complications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing clinical outcomes of double-bundle PCL reconstruction using anatomic and low tibial tunnels. Our findings indicate that the clinical and radiologic outcomes of anatomic and low tibial tunnels were parallel at the 2-year follow-up.
Arthroscopic transtibial PCL reconstruction is a challenging procedure compared with ACL reconstruction because of the restricted visualization, the risks of neurovascular injury, and the killer turn effect. The “killer turn” can compromise the posterior stability by repetitive friction between the graft and tunnel inlet, not only attenuating the graft but also enlarging the tunnel inlet, leading to the displacement of the graft [18,44]. Fanelli first described a modified tibial tunnel placement in the inferior lateral part of the PCL fossa to reduce the killer turn effect [25,45,46]. Recent biomechanical studies have shown the impact of the Fanelli tunnel on graft stress and PCL reconstruction laxity. Wang et al. evaluated peak graft stress using a 3D finite element model and found that a specific tibial tunnel placement, 10 mm inferior and 5 mm lateral to the PCL anatomic insertion, resulted in the lowest peak stress on the PCL graft [47]. Another biomechanical study, utilizing 3D-printed tibial models, by Wang et al. demonstrated that low-tibial-tunnel PCL reconstruction significantly reduced stress concentration and graft abrasion compared to anatomic PCL reconstruction [44]. Several studies have explored graft tunnel angles with CT in 2-dimensional planes [48,49,50]. Lin et al. conducted a clinical study quantifying the “killer turn” with 3D-CT in 3D space. They reported that low-tibial-tunnel PCL reconstruction exhibited two significantly gentler turns (superior, 110° and inferior, 151°) compared to the one acute turn (91°) observed in anatomic PCL reconstruction [26].
Despite the initial hypothesis based on previous biomechanical studies, our study surprisingly found no significant difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes between the low tibial tunnel and anatomic tibial tunnel groups in double-bundle PCL reconstruction. A potential explanation for this discrepancy could be rooted in the fact that most prior biomechanical experiments and clinical studies were centered around single-bundle PCL reconstruction. Lately, several randomized controlled studies and systematic reviews with meta-analysis have proposed that double-bundle PCL reconstruction closely restores the native biomechanics of the intact knee and offers superior objective outcomes, such as Tegner activity score, posterior tibial stability on Telos stress radiographs at 90°, and IKDC objective scores, compared to single-bundle reconstruction [11,12,13,14,15]. In other words, the biomechanical advantages associated with double-bundle PCL reconstruction may influence clinical and radiologic outcomes, potentially mitigating the impact of tibial tunnel position.
Another potential reason for the observed discrepancy between results could be that the two tibial tunnel positions in this study did not differ in the medial-to-lateral directions. Various biomechanical studies have indicated that the placement of tibial tunnels in the medial and lateral directions can impact knee laxity [47,49,51]. Galloway et al. conducted a biomechanical study and found that changes in tibial attachment had a minor effect on knee stability, with lateral tibial attachments exhibiting better control of posterior displacement at 30° and 60° flexion compared to medial tibial attachments [51]. In another biomechanical study, by Markolf et al., it was demonstrated that graft forces with a medially placed tibial tunnel were significantly higher than those with a centrally or laterally placed tunnel for flexion angles greater than 65° [52].
This study has some limitations. First, it adopts a retrospective and non-randomized design. Second, given the relatively low incidence of PCL insufficiency, the limited sample size may introduce potential bias to the study. Third, this study lacked an objective evaluation of knee laxity by using arthrometer devices, such as KT-2000 (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA, USA) or GNRB (Genourob, Laval, France), which offer better reproducibility than stress radiographs [53]. Finally, the study provides preliminary short-term clinical outcomes, and further long-term follow-up studies are needed to explore graft survival and late complications, such as osteoarthritis progression.

5. Conclusions

The main findings of this study indicated that both anatomic tunnel and low tibial tunnel placements in double-bundle PCL reconstruction demonstrated comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiologic outcomes, with similar overall complication rates at the 2-year follow-up.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.-Y.H. and C.-Y.C.; methodology, C.-H.H.; validation, P.C.; formal analysis, C.-H.C.; investigation, C.-Y.C.; resources, K.-Y.H.; data curation, H.S., S.-S.C. and C.-P.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-Y.C.; writing—review and editing, C.-H.C.; visualization, C.-Y.C.; supervision, K.-Y.H. and C.-H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Taiwan Minister of Science and Technology, grant number “NSTC112-2628-B-182A-002”, and Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, grant numbers “CMRPG3M2031” and “CMRPG5K0091”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (reference No. IRB 202400227B0).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully thank the Taiwan Minister of Science and Technology and Chang Gung Memorial Hospital for financial support of this study, grant numbers “NSTC112-2628-B-182A-002”, “CMRPG3M2031”, and “CMRPG5K0091”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Owesen, C.; Sandven-Thrane, S.; Lind, M.; Forssblad, M.; Granan, L.P.; Aroen, A. Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 2384–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schulz, M.S.; Russe, K.; Weiler, A.; Eichhorn, H.J.; Strobel, M.J. Epidemiology of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2003, 123, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sanders, T.L.; Pareek, A.; Barrett, I.J.; Kremers, H.M.; Bryan, A.J.; Stuart, M.J.; Levy, B.A.; Krych, A.J. Incidence and long-term follow-up of isolated posterior cruciate ligament tears. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 3017–3023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shelbourne, K.D.; Clark, M.; Gray, T. Minimum 10-year follow-up of patients after an acute, isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury treated nonoperatively. Am. J. Sports Med. 2013, 41, 1526–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Van de Velde, S.K.; Bingham, J.T.; Gill, T.J.; Li, G. Analysis of tibiofemoral cartilage deformation in the posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2009, 91, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Schroven, W.; Vles, G.; Verhaegen, J.; Roussot, M.; Bellemans, J.; Konan, S. Operative management of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries improves stability and reduces the incidence of secondary osteoarthritis: A systematic review. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2022, 30, 1733–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Johnson, P.; Mitchell, S.M.; Gortz, S. Graft Considerations in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2018, 11, 521–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Matava, M.J.; Ellis, E.; Gruber, B. Surgical treatment of posterior cruciate ligament tears: An evolving technique. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2009, 17, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Hammoud, S.; Reinhardt, K.R.; Marx, R.G. Outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament treatment: A review of the evidence. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2010, 18, 280–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kennedy, N.I.; Wijdicks, C.A.; Goldsmith, M.T.; Michalski, M.P.; Devitt, B.M.; Aroen, A.; Engebretsen, L.; LaPrade, R.F. Kinematic analysis of the posterior cruciate ligament, part 1: The individual and collective function of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles. Am. J. Sports Med. 2013, 41, 2828–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Harner, C.D.; Janaushek, M.A.; Kanamori, A.; Yagi, M.; Vogrin, T.M.; Woo, S.L. Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am. J. Sports Med. 2000, 28, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Li, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; Gao, S.; Zhang, Y. Comparison of single-bundle and double-bundle isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft: A prospective, randomized study. Arthroscopy 2014, 30, 695–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Chahla, J.; Williams, B.T.; LaPrade, R.F. Posterior Cruciate Ligament. Arthroscopy 2020, 36, 333–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Migliorini, F.; Pintore, A.; Spiezia, F.; Oliva, F.; Hildebrand, F.; Maffulli, N. Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 4160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Chahla, J.; Moatshe, G.; Cinque, M.E.; Dornan, G.J.; Mitchell, J.J.; Ridley, T.J.; LaPrade, R.F. Single-Bundle and Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 441 Patients at a Minimum 2 Years’ Follow-up. Arthroscopy 2017, 33, 2066–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Voos, J.E.; Mauro, C.S.; Wente, T.; Warren, R.F.; Wickiewicz, T.L. Posterior cruciate ligament: Anatomy, biomechanics, and outcomes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2012, 40, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Markolf, K.L.; Feeley, B.T.; Jackson, S.R.; McAllister, D.R. Where should the femoral tunnel of a posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction be placed to best restore anteroposterior laxity and ligament forces? Am. J. Sports Med. 2006, 34, 604–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Song, G.; Li, X.; Feng, H. The mechanism of “killer turn” causing residual laxity after transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Asia Pac. J. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rehabil. Technol. 2016, 3, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kim, S.J.; Kim, H.K.; Kim, H.J. A modified endoscopic technique for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using allograft. Arthroscopy 1998, 14, 643–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, Y.S.; Jung, Y.B. Posterior cruciate ligament: Focus on conflicting issues. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2013, 5, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jakob, R.P.; Ruegsegger, M. Therapy of posterior and posterolateral knee instability. Orthopade 1993, 22, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Berg, E.E. Posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1995, 11, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Salim, R.; Fogagnolo, F.; Kfuri, M., Jr. A new simplified onlay technique for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J. Knee Surg. 2014, 27, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yang, F.; Yokoe, T.; Ouchi, K.; Tajima, T.; Chosa, E. Influence of the tibial tunnel angle and posterior tibial slope on “killer turn” during posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fanelli, G.C.; Beck, J.D.; Edson, C.J. Double bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Surgical technique and results. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2010, 18, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lin, Y.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, K.; Pan, X.; Huang, X.; Li, J.; Li, Q. Lower Tibial Tunnel Placement in Isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes and Quantitative Radiological Analysis of the Killer Turn. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2020, 8, 2325967120923950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fanelli, G.; Beck, J.; Edson, C. Single compared to double-bundle PCL reconstruction using allograft tissue. J. Knee Surg. 2012, 25, 059–064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fanelli, G.C. PCL Transtibial Tunnel Reconstruction. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2020, 28, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. LaPrade, C.M.; Civitarese, D.M.; Rasmussen, M.T.; LaPrade, R.F. Emerging Updates on the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Review of the Current Literature. Am. J. Sports Med. 2015, 43, 3077–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Anderson, C.J.; Ziegler, C.G.; Wijdicks, C.A.; Engebretsen, L.; LaPrade, R.F. Arthroscopically pertinent anatomy of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2012, 94, 1936–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kennedy, N.I.; LaPrade, R.F.; Goldsmith, M.T.; Faucett, S.C.; Rasmussen, M.T.; Coatney, G.A.; Engebretsen, L.; Wijdicks, C.A. Posterior cruciate ligament graft fixation angles, part 2: Biomechanical evaluation for anatomic double-bundle reconstruction. Am. J. Sports Med. 2014, 42, 2346–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. LaPrade, R.F.; Smith, S.D.; Wilson, K.J.; Wijdicks, C.A. Quantification of functional brace forces for posterior cruciate ligament injuries on the knee joint: An in vivo investigation. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2015, 23, 3070–3076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Pierce, C.M.; O’Brien, L.; Griffin, L.W.; Laprade, R.F. Posterior cruciate ligament tears: Functional and postoperative rehabilitation. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2013, 21, 1071–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Shin, Y.S.; Han, S.B.; Hwang, Y.K.; Suh, D.W.; Lee, D.H. Tibial tunnel aperture location during single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparison of tibial guide positions. Arthroscopy 2015, 31, 874–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Dejour, H.; Bonnin, M. Tibial translation after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Two radiological tests compared. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1994, 76, 745–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Jung, T.M.; Reinhardt, C.; Scheffler, S.U.; Weiler, A. Stress radiography to measure posterior cruciate ligament insufficiency: A comparison of five different techniques. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2006, 14, 1116–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lee, Y.S.; Han, S.H.; Jo, J.; Kwak, K.S.; Nha, K.W.; Kim, J.H. Comparison of 5 different methods for measuring stress radiographs to improve reproducibility during the evaluation of knee instability. Am. J. Sports Med. 2011, 39, 1275–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zawodny, S.R.; Miller, M.D. Complications of posterior cruciate ligament surgery. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2010, 18, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. James, E.W.; Taber, C.E.; Marx, R.G. Complications Associated with Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Avoiding Them. J. Knee Surg. 2021, 34, 587–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yoon, K.H.; Kim, E.J.; Kwon, Y.B.; Kim, S.G. Minimum 10-Year Results of Single- Versus Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical, Radiologic, and Survivorship Outcomes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 822–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Robertson, G.A.; Coleman, S.G.; Keating, J.F. Knee stiffness following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: The incidence and associated factors of knee stiffness following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 2009, 16, 245–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kim, S.G.; Kim, S.H.; Choi, W.S.; Bae, J.H. Supine lateral radiographs at 90 degrees of knee flexion have a similar diagnostic accuracy for chronic posterior cruciate ligament injuries as stress radiographs. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2019, 27, 2433–2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wang, Z.; Xiong, Y.; Chen, G.; Tang, X.; Li, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Shang, X.; Yang, Y.; Sulaiman, Y.; Li, J. Modified tibial tunnel placement for single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction reduces the “Killer Turn” in a biomechanical model. Medicine 2019, 98, e18439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Fanelli, G.C.; Beck, J.D.; Edson, C.J. Arthroscopic double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgical technique. J. Knee Surg. 2010, 23, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Fanelli, G.C.; Beck, J.D.; Edson, C.J. Current concepts review: The posterior cruciate ligament. J. Knee Surg. 2010, 23, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wang, Z.; Xiong, Y.; Li, Q.; Chen, G.; Zhang, Z.; Tang, X.; Li, J. Evaluation of tibial tunnel placement in single case posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Reducing the graft peak stress may increase posterior tibial translation. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Handy, M.H.; Blessey, P.B.; Kline, A.J.; Miller, M.D. The graft/tunnel angles in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A cadaveric comparison of two techniques for femoral tunnel placement. Arthroscopy 2005, 21, 711–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Jang, K.M.; Park, S.C.; Lee, D.H. Graft Bending Angle at the Intra-articular Femoral Tunnel Aperture After Single-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Inside-Out Versus Outside-In Techniques. Am. J. Sports Med. 2016, 44, 1269–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, S.J.; Chun, Y.M.; Kim, S.H.; Moon, H.K.; Jang, J.W. Femoral graft-tunnel angles in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Analysis with 3-dimensional models and cadaveric experiments. Yonsei Med. J. 2013, 54, 1006–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Galloway, M.T.; Grood, E.S.; Mehalik, J.N.; Levy, M.; Saddler, S.C.; Noyes, F.R. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro study of femoral and tibial graft placement. Am. J. Sports Med. 1996, 24, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Markolf, K.L.; McAllister, D.R.; Young, C.R.; McWilliams, J.; Oakes, D.A. Biomechanical effects of medial-lateral tibial tunnel placement in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J. Orthop. Res. 2003, 21, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Bouguennec, N.; Odri, G.A.; Graveleau, N.; Colombet, P. Comparative reproducibility of TELOS and GNRB(R) for instrumental measurement of anterior tibial translation in normal knees. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2015, 101, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Medicina 60 00545 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient enrollment in this study. PCL, posterior cruciate ligament.
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient enrollment in this study. PCL, posterior cruciate ligament.
Medicina 60 00545 g001
Medicina 60 00545 g002
Figure 2. The sagittal view of the proximal tibia computed tomography images showing the position of the tibial tunnel. (A) Anatomic tibial tunnel is centered above the champagne glass drop-off. (B) Low tibial tunnel is centered below the champagne glass drop-off.
Figure 2. The sagittal view of the proximal tibia computed tomography images showing the position of the tibial tunnel. (A) Anatomic tibial tunnel is centered above the champagne glass drop-off. (B) Low tibial tunnel is centered below the champagne glass drop-off.
Medicina 60 00545 g002
Medicina 60 00545 g003
Figure 3. Three-dimensional computed tomography images showing the position of the tibial tunnel. (A) Anatomic tibial tunnel; (B) low tibial tunnel.
Figure 3. Three-dimensional computed tomography images showing the position of the tibial tunnel. (A) Anatomic tibial tunnel; (B) low tibial tunnel.
Medicina 60 00545 g003
Medicina 60 00545 g004
Figure 4. Evaluation of the tibial tunnel position on a 3D-CT scan. The center of the tibial tunnel is marked with a red dot. (A) In the medial-to-lateral dimension, a, is distance from the medial margin of tibial plateau to the tibial tunnel center; b, is the total width of the tibial plateau. (B) In the proximal-to-distal direction, c, is the distance from the posterior margin of tibial plateau to the center of the tibial tunnel; d, is the distance between the posterior margin of tibial plateau and the champagne glass drop-off.
Figure 4. Evaluation of the tibial tunnel position on a 3D-CT scan. The center of the tibial tunnel is marked with a red dot. (A) In the medial-to-lateral dimension, a, is distance from the medial margin of tibial plateau to the tibial tunnel center; b, is the total width of the tibial plateau. (B) In the proximal-to-distal direction, c, is the distance from the posterior margin of tibial plateau to the center of the tibial tunnel; d, is the distance between the posterior margin of tibial plateau and the champagne glass drop-off.
Medicina 60 00545 g004
Medicina 60 00545 g005
Figure 5. Posterior tibial translation on the kneeling stress radiograph is measured as the distance between the two dotted lines. A continuous line was drawn across the medial tibial plateau, and two dotted lines were drawn perpendicular to the continuous line crossing the midpoint of the femoral condyles and the most posterior border of the tibial plateau. The double arrow indicates the posterior tibial translation.
Figure 5. Posterior tibial translation on the kneeling stress radiograph is measured as the distance between the two dotted lines. A continuous line was drawn across the medial tibial plateau, and two dotted lines were drawn perpendicular to the continuous line crossing the midpoint of the femoral condyles and the most posterior border of the tibial plateau. The double arrow indicates the posterior tibial translation.
Medicina 60 00545 g005
Medicina 60 00545 g006
Figure 6. CT scan of the knee demonstrating heterotopic calcification (arrow) in the popliteal fossa on sagittal (A) and axial (B) planes.
Figure 6. CT scan of the knee demonstrating heterotopic calcification (arrow) in the popliteal fossa on sagittal (A) and axial (B) planes.
Medicina 60 00545 g006
Table 1. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and radiologic data.
Table 1. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and radiologic data.
Group A (n = 18)Group L (n = 18)p-Value
Demographic data
 Age, yr42.8 ± 9.839.0 ± 10.10.636
 Sex, male: female, n16:215:30.629
 BMI, kg/m226.7 ± 3.324.8 ± 4.80.288
 Combined meniscus injury, n (%)2 (11%)5 (28%)0.402
Clinical data
 ROM, deg118.6 ± 6.9119.7 ± 5.20.855
 Posterior drawer test,
 grade 0:1:2:3, n		0:0:8:100:0:7:110.753
Radiologic data
 Hip–knee–ankle angle, deg178.0 ± 2.1178.4 ± 3.50.955
 Posterior tibial slope, deg6.5 ± 2.26.4 ± 2.70.841
 STSD, mm10.6 ± 2.112.5 ± 2.60.175
Patient-reported outcomes
 Tegner activity scale 2.8 ± 0.82.7 ± 0.80.803
 IKDC subjective score49.8 ± 8.547.5 ± 9.90.642
 Lysholm score62.7 ± 6.759.2 ± 8.60.393
BMI, body mass index; ROM, range of motion; STSD, side-to-side difference on keeling stress radiographs; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Table 2. Tibial tunnel position on 3D-CT scan.
Table 2. Tibial tunnel position on 3D-CT scan.
Group A (n = 18)Group L (n = 18)p-Value
ML total, mm76.8 ± 4.176.3 ± 6.70.388
ML distance, mm36.4 ± 7.033.9 ± 6.70.607
ML percentage, %47.6 ± 10.044.5 ± 4.90.776
PD total, mm22.9 ± 3.622.4 ± 2.00.768
PD distance, mm12.5 ± 2.729.1 ± 3.5<0.001 *
PD percentage, %54.6 ± 6.9130.6 ± 16.9<0.001 *
ML, medial to lateral; PD, proximal to distal. * p-value < 0.05 indicates statistically significant difference between groups.
Table 3. Postoperative outcomes and complications.
Table 3. Postoperative outcomes and complications.
Group A (n = 18)Group L (n = 18)p-Value
Clinical and radiologic outcomes
 ROM, deg134.4 ± 3.9132.5 ± 4.20.340
 Posterior drawer test,
 grade 0:1:2:3, n		9:8:1:08:8:2:00.660
 STSD, mm2.5 ±1.23.7 ± 2.00.346
Patient-reported outcomes
 Tegner activity scale 4.6 ± 1.24.5 ± 1.40.816
 IKDC subjective score82.8 ± 8.780.5 ± 8.50.624
 Lysholm score88.0 ± 9.685.8 ± 8.60.664
Complications, n (%)2 (11.1)2 (11.1)>0.999
 Graft failure00NA
 Neurovascular injury1 (5.6)0>0.999
 Compartment syndrome00NA
 Hemarthrosis01 (5.6)>0.999
 Infection1 (5.6) 0>0.999
 Stiffness00NA
 Heterotopic calcification01 (5.6)>0.999
ROM, range of motion; STSD, side-to-side difference on keeling stress radiographs; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; NA, not applicable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, C.-Y.; Hsu, C.-H.; Chen, P.; Hsu, K.-Y.; Yang, C.-P.; Sheu, H.; Chang, S.-S.; Chiu, C.-H. Anatomic versus Low Tibial Tunnel in Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up. Medicina 2024, 60, 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60040545

AMA Style

Chen C-Y, Hsu C-H, Chen P, Hsu K-Y, Yang C-P, Sheu H, Chang S-S, Chiu C-H. Anatomic versus Low Tibial Tunnel in Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up. Medicina. 2024; 60(4):545. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60040545

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Chung-Yu, Chen-Heng Hsu, Poyu Chen, Kuo-Yao Hsu, Cheng-Pang Yang, Huan Sheu, Shih-Sheng Chang, and Chih-Hao Chiu. 2024. "Anatomic versus Low Tibial Tunnel in Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up" Medicina 60, no. 4: 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60040545

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop