Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2017; 30(03): 238-243
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1584185
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Arthroscopic All-Inside Tibial-Inlay Reconstruction of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: Medium-Term Functional Results and Complication Rate

Michael Osti
1   Department for Trauma Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Academic Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
2   Department for Trauma Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
,
Doris Hierzer
1   Department for Trauma Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Academic Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
3   Department for Trauma Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
,
Franz-Josef Seibert
3   Department for Trauma Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
,
Karl Peter Benedetto
1   Department for Trauma Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Academic Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 January 2016

10 April 2016

Publication Date:
20 May 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The present study evaluates the medium-term functional and radiological outcome as well as complications following an arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). A total of 39 patients (mean age: 32.6 ± 12.4 years) with acute and chronic PCL instabilities received a single-bundle all-inside arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction with quadriceps tendon autograft and were available for clinical follow-up on average after 3.8 ± 1.8 years. Assessment was conducted utilizing visual analogue scale (VAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner, Lysholm, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome (KOOS) scores. VAS, Tegner, Lysholm, and subjective IKDC-scores averaged to 2.75 ± 1.95, 4 (1–9), 77.19 ± 17.54, and 75.18 ± 19.29 points, respectively. Mean KOOS results were 80.66 ± 1.98 for pain, 74.72 ± 17.72 for symptoms, 88.44 ± 13.95 for activities of daily life, 65.35 ± 27.96 for sports and recreation, and 60.01 ± 25.36 for quality of life. Overall IKDC-score rating was A2, B28, C5, and D4. The overall complication rate of 5.4% was caused by one superficial infection, one patellar fracture, and one lesion to the popliteal artery. Arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction is a valuable procedure regarding medium-term subjective and objective outcome measures. Return to sports, subjective satisfaction, and objective stability are predictable. The complication rate is acceptable but particular precaution is recommended to protect the popliteal artery and adjacent structures at risk.

Keywords

PCL reconstruction - arthroscopic all-inside - tibial inlay - functional result - complication rate
 

  • References

  • 1 Boutefnouchet T, Bentayeb M, Qadri Q, Ali S. Long-term outcomes following single-bundle transtibial arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (2) 337-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Grindem H, Eitzen I, Engebretsen L, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. Nonsurgical or Surgical Treatment of ACL Injuries: Knee Function, Sports Participation, and Knee Reinjury: The Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (15) 1233-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wind Jr WM, Bergfeld JA, Parker RD. Evaluation and treatment of posterior cruciate ligament injuries: revisited. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (7) 1765-1775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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 (1) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bergfeld JA, McAllister DR, Parker RD, Valdevit AD, Kambic HE. A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (2) 129-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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 (7) 976-981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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 (2) 425-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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 (3) 320-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Markolf KL, Feeley BT, Jackson SR, McAllister DR. 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 (4) 604-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Benedetto KP, Hoffelner T, Osti M. The biomechanical characteristics of arthroscopic tibial inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: in vitro comparison of tibial graft tunnel placement. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (11) 2363-2368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lee DW, Jang HW, Lee YS , et al. Clinical, Functional, and Morphological Evaluations of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Remnant Preservation: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (8) 1822-1831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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-A (4) 518-524
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Margheritini F, Mauro CS, Rihn JA, Stabile KJ, Woo SL, 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 (3) 587-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tompkins M, Keller TC, Milewski MD , et al. Anatomic femoral tunnels in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: inside-out versus outside-in drilling. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (1) 43-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Li B, Wen Y, Wu H, Qian Q, Wu Y, Lin X. Arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: retrospective review of hamstring tendon graft versus LARS artificial ligament. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (4) 991-996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hudgens JL, Gillette BP, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, May JH, Levy BA. Allograft versus autograft in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based systematic review. J Knee Surg 2013; 26 (2) 109-115
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Galloway MT, Grood ES, Mehalik JN, Levy M, Saddler SC, Noyes FR. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro study of femoral and tibial graft placement. Am J Sports Med 1996; 24 (4) 437-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Petersen W, Lenschow S, Weimann A, Strobel MJ, Raschke MJ, Zantop T. Importance of femoral tunnel placement in double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: biomechanical analysis using a robotic/universal force-moment sensor testing system. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (3) 456-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Seon JK, Song EK. Reconstruction of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a clinical comparison of the transtibial and tibial inlay techniques. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (1) 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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 (2) 73-79
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kim SJ, Jung M, Moon HK, Kim SG, Chun YM. Anterolateral transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anatomical reconstruction of posterolateral corner insufficiency: comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction over a 2- to 6-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (3) 481-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mannor DA, Shearn JT, Grood ES, Noyes FR, Levy MS. Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro analysis of graft placement and tension. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (6) 833-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Osti M, Krawinkel A, Benedetto KP. In vivo evaluation of femoral and tibial graft tunnel placement following all-inside arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. Knee 2014; 21 (6) 1198-1202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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
  • 26 Mariani PP, Margheritini F. Full arthroscopic inlay reconstruction of posterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (11) 1038-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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 (7) 1526-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Matava MJ, Sethi NS, Totty WG. Proximity of the posterior cruciate ligament insertion to the popliteal artery as a function of the knee flexion angle: implications for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2000; 16 (8) 796-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Zawodny SR, Miller MD. Complications of posterior cruciate ligament surgery. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2010; 18 (4) 269-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Franciozi CE, Albertoni LJB, Ribeiro FN , et al. A simple method to minimize vascular lesion of the popliteal artery by guidewire during transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (9) 1124-1130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar