Biomechanical Comparison of Five Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques

Abstract

No surgical technique recreates native posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) biomechanics. We compared the biomechanics of five different PCL reconstruction techniques versus the native PCL. Cadaveric knees (n = 20) were randomly assigned to one of five reconstruction techniques: Single bundle all-inside arthroscopic inlay, single bundle all-inside suspensory fixation, single bundle arthroscopic-assisted open onlay (SB-ONL), double bundle arthroscopic-assisted open inlay (DB-INL), and double bundle all-inside suspensory fixation (DB-SUSP). Each specimen was potted and connected to a servo-hydraulic load frame for testing in three conditions: PCL intact, PCL deficient, and PCL reconstructed. Testing consisted of a posterior force up to 100 N at a rate of 1 N/s at four knee flexion angles: 10, 30, 60, and 90 degrees. Three material properties were measured under each condition: load to 5 mm displacement, maximal displacement, and stiffness. Data were normalized to the native PCL, compared across techniques, compared with all PCL-intact knees and to all PCL-deficient knees using one-way analysis of variance. For load to 5 mm displacement, intact knees required significantly (p < 0.03) more load at 30 degrees of flexion than all reconstructions except the DB-SUSP. At 60 degrees of flexion, intact required significantly (p < 0.01) more load than all others except the SB-ONL. At 90 degrees, intact, SB-ONL, DB-INL, and DB-SUSP required significantly more load (p < 0.05). Maximal displacement testing showed the intact to have significantly (p < 0.02) less laxity than all others except the DB-INL and DB-SUSP at 60 degrees. At 90 degrees the intact showed significantly (p < 0.01) less laxity than all others except the DB-SUSP. The intact was significantly stiffer than all others at 30 degrees (p < 0.03) and 60 degrees (p < 0.01). Finally, the intact was significantly (p < 0.05) stiffer than all others except the DB-SUSP at 90 degrees. No technique matched the exact properties of the native PCL, but the double bundle reconstructions more closely recreated the native biomechanics immediately after implantation, with the DB-SUSP coming closest to the native ligament. This study contributes new data for consideration in PCL reconstruction technique choice.

Keywords

posterior cruciate ligament - autograft - allograft - reconstruction techniques - biomechanics

Author Note

This is a companion article to Milles et al[38] article entitled “Biomechanical comparison: single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques” published online on August 20, 2016, in the Journal of Knee Surgery.

• References

• 1 Adler GG. All-inside posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a GraftLink. Arthrosc Tech 2013; 2 (02) e111-e115
• 2 Campbell RB, Torrie A, Hecker A, Sekiya JK. Comparison of tibial graft fixation between simulated arthroscopic and open inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (10) 1731-1738
• 3 Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ. Current concepts review: the posterior cruciate ligament. J Knee Surg 2010; 23 (02) 61-72
• 4 Lu D, Xiao M, Lian Y, Zhou Y, Liu X. Comparison of the operation of arthroscopic tibial inlay and traditional tibial inlay for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7 (10) 3193-3201
• 5 Montgomery SR, Johnson JS, McAllister DR, Petrigliano FA. Surgical management of PCL injuries: indications, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2013; 6 (02) 115-123
• 6 Panchal HB, Sekiya JK. Open tibial inlay versus arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (09) 1289-1295
• 7 Ettinger M, Büermann S, Calliess T. , et al. Tibial inlay press-fit fixation versus interference screw in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2013; 5 (04) e35
• 8 Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ. Double bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: surgical technique and results. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2010; 18 (04) 242-248
• 9 Kim SJ, Kim SH, Kim SG, Kung YP. Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (Suppl 1 Pt 2): 145-157
• 10 Lee DC, Shon OJ, Kwack BH, Lee SJ. Proprioception and clinical results of anterolateral single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation. Knee Surg Relat Res 2013; 25 (03) 126-132
• 11 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 (06) 695-700
• 12 Maruyama Y, Shitoto K, Baba T, Kaneko K. Evaluation of the clinical results of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction -a comparison between the use of the bone tendon bone and semitendinosus and gracilis tendons. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 2012; 4 (01) 30
• 13 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
• 14 Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Jackson SR, McAllister DR. Biomechanical studies of double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (08) 1788-1794
• 15 Miller MD, Gorder WT. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Tibial inlay technique-principals and procedure. Oper Tech Sports Med 1999; 7: 127-133
• 16 Race A, Amis AA. PCL reconstruction. In vitro biomechanical comparison of ‘isometric’ versus single and double-bundled ‘anatomic’ grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (01) 173-179
• 17 Cooper DE, Stewart D. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle patella tendon graft with tibial inlay fixation: 2- to 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (02) 346-360
• 18 McAllister DR, Markolf KL, Oakes DA, Young CR, McWilliams J. A biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay and tibial tunnel posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: graft pretension and knee laxity. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30 (03) 312-317
• 19 Zehms CT, Whiddon DR, Miller MD. , et al. Comparison of a double bundle arthroscopic inlay and open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using clinically relevant tools: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (04) 472-480
• 20 Salim R, Fogagnolo F, Kfuri Jr M. A new simplified onlay technique for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2014; 27 (04) 289-293
• 21 Clancy Jr WG, Bisson LJ. Double tunnel technique for reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. Oper Tech Sports Med 1999; 7: 110-117
• 22 Stannard JP, Cook JL. Tibial inlay PCL reconstruction: Advances to a new technique. Oper Tech Sports Med 2015; 23 (04) 298-301
• 23 Bergfeld JA, Graham SM, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE. A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (07) 976-981
• 24 Deie M, Adachi N, Nakamae A, Takazawa K, Ochi M. Evaluation of single-bundle versus double-bundle PCL reconstructions with more than 10-year follow-up. Sci World J 2015; 2015: 751465
• 25 Harner CD, Janaushek MA, Kanamori A, Yagi M, Vogrin TM, Woo SL. Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (02) 144-151
• 26 Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Tejwani SG, Martin DE, McAllister DR. Changes in knee laxity and ligament force after sectioning the posteromedial bundle of the posterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (10) 1100-1106
• 27 Qi YS, Wang HJ, Wang SJ, Zhang ZZ, Huang AB, Yu JK. A systematic review of double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17 (01) 45
• 28 Whiddon DR, Zehms CT, Miller MD, Quinby JS, Montgomery SL, Sekiya JK. Double compared with single-bundle open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a cadaver model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (09) 1820-1829
• 29 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
• 30 Wiley WB, Askew MJ, Melby III A, Noe DA. Kinematics of the posterior cruciate ligament/posterolateral corner-injured knee after reconstruction by single- and double-bundle intra-articular grafts. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (05) 741-748
• 31 Zhao JX, Zhang LH, Mao Z. , et al. Outcome of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the single- versus double bundle technique: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res 2015; 43 (02) 149-160
• 32 Tsukada H, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Fukuda A, Yamamoto Y, Toh S. Biomechanical evaluation of an anatomic double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (02) 264-271
• 33 Gollehon DL, Torzilli PA, Warren RF. The role of the posterolateral and cruciate ligaments in the stability of the human knee. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69 (02) 233-242
• 34 Li G, Gill TJ, DeFrate LE, Zayontz S, Glatt V, Zarins B. Biomechanical consequences of PCL deficiency in the knee under simulated muscle loads--an in vitro experimental study. J Orthop Res 2002; 20 (04) 887-892
• 35 Mook WR, Civitarese D, Turnbull TL. , et al. Double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical analysis of simulated early motion and partial and full weightbearing on common reconstruction grafts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016 (e-pub haead of print). doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4056-7
• 36 Girgis FG, Marshall JL, Monajem A. The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint. Anatomical, functional and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975; (106) 216-231
• 37 Kennedy NI, LaPrade RF, Goldsmith MT. , et al. Posterior cruciate ligament graft fixation angles, part 2: biomechanical evaluation for anatomic double-bundle reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (10) 2346-2355
• 38 Milles JL, Nuelle CW, Pfeiffer F. , et al. Biomechanical comparison: single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. J Knee Surg 2016;