Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2024; 37(03): 183-192
DOI: 10.1055/a-1996-1153
Original Article

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

Joseph Temperato
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Kylee Rucinski 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
James L. Cook 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Aaron Meers
3   School of Medicine, University of Missouri System Ringgold Standard Institution, Columbia, Missouri
,
João Bourbon de Albuquerque II
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
James P. Stannard 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Keywords

posterior cruciate ligament - reconstruction - transtibial inlay - tibial inlay


Publication History

Received: 11 November 2022

Accepted: 07 December 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
10 December 2022

Article published online:
07 February 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Fanelli GC, Edson CJ. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients: Part II. Arthroscopy 1995; 11 (05) 526-529
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Axibal DP, Yeatts NC, Hysong AA. et al. Intraoperative and early (90-day) postoperative complications and associated variables with multiligamentous knee reconstruction: 15-year experience from a single academic institution. Arthroscopy 2022; 38 (02) 427-438
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Anderson MA, Simeone FJ, Palmer WE, Chang CY. Acute posterior cruciate ligament injuries: effect of location, severity, and associated injuries on surgical management. Skeletal Radiol 2018; 47 (11) 1523-1532
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Schlumberger M, Schuster P, Eichinger M. et al. Posterior cruciate ligament lesions are mainly present as combined lesions even in sports injuries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (07) 2091-2098
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Sanders TL, Pareek A, Barrett IJ. et al. Incidence and long-term follow-up of isolated posterior cruciate ligament tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (10) 3017-3023
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Becker EH, Watson JD, Dreese JC. Investigation of multiligamentous knee injury patterns with associated injuries presenting at a level I trauma center. J Orthop Trauma 2013; 27 (04) 226-231
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Grassmayr MJ, Parker DA, Coolican MRJ, Vanwanseele B. Posterior cruciate ligament deficiency: biomechanical and biological consequences and the outcomes of conservative treatment. A systematic review. J Sci Med Sport 2008; 11 (05) 433-443
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Shelbourne KD, Rubinstein Jr RA. Methodist Sports Medicine Center's experience with acute and chronic isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Clin Sports Med 1994; 13 (03) 531-543
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Fanelli GC, Edson CJ, Orcutt DR, Harris JD, Zijerdi D. Treatment of combined anterior cruciate-posterior cruciate ligament-medial-lateral side knee injuries. J Knee Surg 2005; 18 (03) 240-248
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Barber FA, Fanelli GC, Matthews LS, Pak SS, Woods GW. The treatment of complete posterior cruciate ligament tears. Arthroscopy 2000; 16 (07) 725-731
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Covey DC. Injuries of the posterolateral corner of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83 (01) 106-118
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Harner CD, Vogrin TM, Höher J, Ma CB, Woo SL. Biomechanical analysis of a posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Deficiency of the posterolateral structures as a cause of graft failure. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (01) 32-39
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Cosgarea AJ, Jay PR. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2001; 9 (05) 297-307
    Google Scholar
  • 14 LaPrade CM, Civitarese DM, Rasmussen MT, LaPrade RF. Emerging Updates on the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Review of the Current Literature. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (12) 3077-3092
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Levy BA, Dajani KA, Whelan DB. et al. Decision making in the multiligament-injured knee: an evidence-based systematic review. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (04) 430-438
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Schumaier A, Minoughan C, Jimenez A, Grawe B. Treatments of Choice for Isolated, Full-Thickness Tears of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Nationwide Survey of Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (08) 812-819
    Google Scholar
  • 17 May JH, Gillette BP, Morgan JA, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, Levy BA. Transtibial versus inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based systematic review. J Knee Surg 2010; 23 (02) 73-79
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Wong T, Wang CJ, Weng LH. et al. Functional outcomes of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of anteromedial and anterolateral trans-tibia approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129 (03) 315-321
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Margheritini F, Mauro CS, Rihn JA, Stabile KJ, Woo SLY, Harner CD. Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: analysis of knee kinematics and graft in situ forces. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (03) 587-593
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Berg EE. Posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1995; 11 (01) 69-76
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Markolf KL, Zemanovic JR, McAllister DR. Cyclic loading of posterior cruciate ligament replacements fixed with tibial tunnel and tibial inlay methods. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84 (04) 518-524
    Google Scholar
  • 22 James EW, Taber CE, Marx RG. Complications Associated with Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Avoiding Them. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (06) 587-591
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Park SE, Stamos BD, DeFrate LE, Gill TJ, Li G. The effect of posterior knee capsulotomy on posterior tibial translation during posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (06) 1514-1519
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Marom N, Ruzbarsky JJ, Boyle C, Marx RG. Complications in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries and Related Surgery. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2020; 28 (01) 30-33
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Makino A, Costa-Paz M, Aponte-Tinao L, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL. Popliteal artery laceration during arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (11) 1396
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Kim YM, Lee CA, Matava MJ. Clinical results of arthroscopic single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (02) 425-434
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Fanelli GC, Edson CJ. Arthroscopically assisted combined anterior and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the multiple ligament injured knee: 2- to 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (07) 703-714
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Chan YS, Yang SC, Chang CH. et al. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament with use of a quadruple hamstring tendon graft with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (07) 762-770
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Chen CH, Chen WJ, Shih CH. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a comparison of quadriceps tendon autograft and quadruple hamstring tendon graft. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (06) 603-612
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Fanelli GC. Transtibial Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (05) 486-492
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Therrien E, Pareek A, Song BM, Wilbur RR, Stuart MJ, Levy BA. All-Inside PCL reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (05) 472-477
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Salim R, Nascimento FMD, Ferreira AM, Oliveira LFL, Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M. Tibial Onlay Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Results. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (03) 284-290
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Albuquerque Ii JB, Pfeiffer F, Stannard JP, Cook JL, Kfuri M. Onlay Reconstruction of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: Biomechanical Comparison of Unicortical and Bicortical Tibial Fixation. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (10) 972-978
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Stannard JP. Tibial Inlay Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2020; 28 (01) 14-17
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Mackay GM, Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Hopper GP, Ribbans WJ. A review of ligament augmentation with the InternalBrace™: the surgical principle is described for the lateral ankle ligament and ACL repair in particular, and a comprehensive review of other surgical applications and techniques is presented. Surg Technol Int 2015; 26: 239-255
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Dabis J, Wilson A. Repair and Augmentation with Internal Brace in the Multiligament Injured Knee. Clin Sports Med 2019; 38 (02) 275-283
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Stannard JP, Cook JL. Tibial Inlay Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Advances to a New Technique. Oper Tech Sports Med 2015; 23 (04) 298-301
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Stannard JP, Nuelle CW, McGwin G, Volgas DA. Hinged external fixation in the treatment of knee dislocations: a prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (03) 184-191
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Feltham GT, Albright JP. The diagnosis of PCL injury: literature review and introduction of two novel tests. Iowa Orthop J 2001; 21: 36-42
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Raj MA, Mabrouk A, Varacallo M. Posterior Cruciate Ligament Knee Injuries. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Accessed November 1, 2022. at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430726/
  • 41 Hughston JC, Andrews JR, Cross MJ, Moschi A. Classification of knee ligament instabilities. Part I. The medial compartment and cruciate ligaments. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976; 58 (02) 159-172
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Clancy Jr WG, Shelbourne KD, Zoellner GB, Keene JS, Reider B, Rosenberg TD. Treatment of knee joint instability secondary to rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament. Report of a new procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983; 65 (03) 310-322
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Paessler HH, Michel D. How new is the Lachman test?. Am J Sports Med 1992; 20 (01) 95-98
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Allen CR, Kaplan LD, Fluhme DJ, Harner CD. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14 (02) 142-149
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Malanga GA, Andrus S, Nadler SF, McLean J. Physical examination of the knee: a review of the original test description and scientific validity of common orthopedic tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84 (04) 592-603
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Karhade AV, Bernstein DN, Desai V. et al. What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480 (09) 1672-1681
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Horn ME, Reinke EK, Couce LJ, Reeve BB, Ledbetter L, George SZ. Reporting and utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures in orthopedic research and practice: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 2020; 15 (01) 553
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Hung M, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Saltzman CL. Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics. World J Orthop 2018; 9 (03) 41-49
    Google Scholar
  • 49 MacGillivray JD, Stein BES, Park M, Allen AA, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (03) 320-328
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Shin YS, Kim HJ, Lee DH. No Clinically Important Difference in Knee Scores or Instability Between Transtibial and Inlay Techniques for PCL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (04) 1239-1248
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Panchal HB, Sekiya JK. Open tibial inlay versus arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (09) 1289-1295
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Lee DY, Kim DH, Kim HJ, Ahn HS, Lee TH, Hwang SC. Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Transtibial or Tibial Inlay Techniques: A Meta-analysis of Biomechanical and Clinical Outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (11) 2789-2797
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Zhang J, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Zheng T, Li Y. No difference in subjective and objective clinical outcomes between arthroscopic transtibial and open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques in the treatment of multi-ligamentous knee injuries. Knee 2021; 30: 18-25
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Seon JK, Song EK. Reconstruction of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a clinical comparison of the transtibial and tibial inlay techniques. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (01) 27-32
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Wijdicks CA, Kennedy NI, Goldsmith MT. et al. Kinematic analysis of the posterior cruciate ligament, part 2: a comparison of anatomic single- versus double-bundle reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (12) 2839-2848
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Nuelle CW, Milles JL, Pfeiffer FM. et al. Biomechanical Comparison of Five Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (06) 523-531
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Lee YS, Han SH, Kim JH. A biomechanical comparison of tibial back side fixation between suspensory and expansion mechanisms in trans-tibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 2012; 19 (01) 55-59
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Smith PA, Stannard JP, Pfeiffer FM, Kuroki K, Bozynski CC, Cook JL. Suspensory Versus Interference Screw Fixation for Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in a Translational Large-Animal Model. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (06) 1086-1097
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Ridley TJ, Cook S, Bollier M. et al. Effect of body mass index on patients with multiligamentous knee injuries. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (11) 1447-1452
    Google Scholar
  • 60 Everhart JS, Du A, Chalasani R, Kirven JC, Magnussen RA, Flanigan DC. Return to Work or Sport After Multiligament Knee Injury: A Systematic Review of 21 Studies and 524 Patients. Arthroscopy 2018; 34 (05) 1708-1716
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Lian J, Patel NK, Nickoli M. et al. Erratum: Obesity Is Associated with Significant Morbidity after Multiligament Knee Surgery. J Knee Surg 2020; 33 (06) e1
    Google Scholar