PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg 2019; 32(06): 506-512
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1653947
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Treatment Outcome of Reconstruction for Isolated Posterior Cruciate Injury: Subjective and Objective Evaluations

Satoshi Ochiai
1   The Sports Medicine and Knee Center, National Hospital Organization, Kofu National Hospital, Kofu, Yamanashi, Japan
,
Tetsuo Hagino
1   The Sports Medicine and Knee Center, National Hospital Organization, Kofu National Hospital, Kofu, Yamanashi, Japan
,
Shinya Senga
1   The Sports Medicine and Knee Center, National Hospital Organization, Kofu National Hospital, Kofu, Yamanashi, Japan
,
Takashi Yamashita
1   The Sports Medicine and Knee Center, National Hospital Organization, Kofu National Hospital, Kofu, Yamanashi, Japan
,
Hirotaka Haro
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Chuo, Yamanashi, Japan
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

17. August 2017

08. April 2018

Publikationsdatum:
23. Mai 2018 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

There is no consensus regarding the treatment method and outcome of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury. We hypothesized that although the outcome of PCL reconstruction was favorable in terms of knee stability, the outcome was unsatisfactory in terms of patient-based assessments. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the treatment outcomes of knees that underwent reconstruction for PCL injury by subjective and objective assessments, and to analyze the correlation between various assessments. Twenty-three patients who underwent PCL reconstruction were studied. All reconstructions were performed arthroscopically by the single-bundle technique using a hamstring tendon autograft. Patients were evaluated clinically before operation and 24 months after operation using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) which is a patient-based health assessment survey, Lysholm score, tibial translation ratio, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, and range of motion (ROM) in the knee. The correlation of these assessment methods was analyzed. For the SF-36 survey, significant improvement was observed after operation in only 3 of 7 subscales compared with before surgery. Furthermore, the scores reached the national standard scores in only 3 subscales. While the Lysholm score and tibial translation ratio were improved significantly, no significant improvement in the VAS pain score was observed. For ROM assessment, approximately 30% of the patients had flexion restriction after operation, and the degree of restriction correlated positively with the VAS score. The present results indicated that although the outcome of PCL reconstruction was favorable in terms of knee stability and motor function, the outcome was unsatisfactory in terms of patient-based assessments. Since pain associated with flexion restriction appears to be a poor prognostic factor and there is a dissociation between subjective and objective assessments, improvement of the surgical method is necessary.

Keywords

posterior cruciate ligament - PCL reconstruction - treatment outcome - subjective - objective

Note

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


 

  • References

  • 1 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Patel DV, Allen AA, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Simonian PT. The nonoperative treatment of acute, isolated (partial or complete) posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees: an intermediate-term follow-up study. HSS J 2007; 3 (02) 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shelbourne KD, Davis TJ, Patel DV. The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries. A prospective study. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27 (03) 276-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shino K, Horibe S, Nakata K, Maeda A, Hamada M, Nakamura N. Conservative treatment of isolated injuries to the posterior cruciate ligament in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77 (06) 895-900
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jacobi M, Reischl N, Wahl P, Gautier E, Jakob RP. Acute isolated injury of the posterior cruciate ligament treated by a dynamic anterior drawer brace: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (10) 1381-1384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Shelbourne KD, 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 (07) 1526-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 L'Insalata JC, Harner CD. Treatment of acute and chronic posterior cruciate ligament deficiency. New approaches. Am J Knee Surg 1996; 9 (04) 185-193 Review
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lim BO, Shin HS, Lee YS. Biomechanical comparison of rotational activities between anterior cruciate ligament- and posterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (04) 1231-1238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ochiai S, Hagino T, Senga S, Saito M, Haro H. Prospective evaluation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a patient-based health-related survey: comparison of acute and chronic cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134 (06) 813-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ochiai S, Hagino T, Senga S, Saito M, Haro H. Prospective evaluation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a patient-based health-related survey: comparison of single-bundle and anatomical double-bundle techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132 (03) 393-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ochiai S, Hagino T, Tonotsuka H, Haro H. Prospective analysis of health-related quality of life and clinical evaluations in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury undergoing reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131 (08) 1091-1094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (06) 473-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fukuhara S, Suzukamo Y. Manual of SF-36 v2 Japanese Version. Kyoto, Japan: Institute for Health Outcomes & Process Evaluation Research; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Aitken RCB. Measurement of feelings using Visual Analogue Scales. Proc R Soc Med 1969; 62 (10) 989-993
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; (198) 43-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Murase K, Kumano K, Mannouji T. , et al. Radiographical measurement of anteroposterior instability of the knee joint [Japanese]. Tokyo Knee Joint Meeting for Study; 1987: 179-186
    Google Scholar
  • 18 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Shino K, Nakagawa S, Nakamura N, Matsumoto N, Toritsuka Y, Natsu-ume T. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendons: one-incision technique with Endobutton. Arthroscopy 1996; 12 (05) 638-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Noyes FR, Harrison JD. PCL Reconstruction with the Acufex Director Drill Guide. A Smith & Nephew Technique Plus Illustrated Guide; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Brittberg M, Winalski CS. Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A (Suppl. 02) 58-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Boutefnouchet T, Bentayeb M, Qadri Q, Ali S. Long-term outcomes following single-bundle transtibial arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (02) 337-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J. , et al. International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res 1992; 1 (05) 349-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Deehan DJ, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Pinczewski LA. Endoscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results at minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2003; 19 (09) 955-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Owesen C, Sandven-Thrane S, Lind M, Forssblad M, Granan LP, Årøen A. Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (08) 2384-2391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gill TJ, DeFrate LE, Wang C. , et al. The effect of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on patellofemoral contact pressures in the knee joint under simulated muscle loads. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (01) 109-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Neuman P, Kostogiannis I, Fridén T, Roos H, Dahlberg LE, Englund M. Patellofemoral osteoarthritis 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament injury--a prospective cohort study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009; 17 (03) 284-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Song EK, Park HW, Ahn YS, Seon JK. Transtibial versus tibial inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (12) 2964-2971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fanelli GC, Giannotti BF, Edson CJ. The posterior cruciate ligament arthroscopic evaluation and treatment. Arthroscopy 1994; 10 (06) 673-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ochiai S, Hagino T, Senga S, Yamashita T, Ando T, Haro H. Prospective analysis using a patient-based health-related scale shows lower functional scores after posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions as compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (09) 1891-1898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Miller RH, Azar FM. Chapter 45: knee injuries. In: Canale ST, Beaty JH. , eds. Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics. 12th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier; 2013: 2176
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Berg EE. Posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1995; 11 (01) 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Makino A, Aponte Tinao L, Ayerza MA, Pascual Garrido C, Costa Paz M, Muscolo DL. Anatomic double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using double-double tunnel with tibial anterior and posterior fresh-frozen allograft. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (06) 684.e1-684.e5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 MacGillivray JD, Stein BE, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Yoon KH, Bae DK, Song SJ, Cho HJ, Lee JH. A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (03) 474-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Osti M, Hierzer D, Krawinkel A, Hoffelner T, Benedetto KP. The predictive effect of anatomic femoral and tibial graft tunnel placement in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on functional and radiological outcome. Int Orthop 2015; 39 (06) 1181-1186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Adler T, Friederich NF, Amsler F, Müller W, Hirschmann MT. Clinical and radiological long-term outcome after posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and nonanatomical popliteus bypass. Int Orthop 2015; 39 (01) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar