Cited 0 times in

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.

Title
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.
Authors
Sung-Jae Kim;Min Jung;Yong-Min Chun;Sul-Gee Kim;Hong-Kyo Moon
Issue Date
2011
Journal Title
American Journal of Sports Medicine
ISSN
0363-5465
Citation
American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol.39(3) : 481~489, 2011
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of clinical studies comparing single- and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction combined with a posterolateral corner reconstruction. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of single- and double-bundle transtibial PCL reconstruction combined with reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligament and popliteus tendon for posterolateral corner insufficiency. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence 3. METHODS: The study population consisted of 42 patients for whom a minimum of 2 years of follow-up data were available. The authors compared the clinical outcomes of 2 surgical techniques: a single-bundle technique (23 patients) and a double-bundle technique (19 patients), each combined with reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligament and popliteus tendon for posterolateral corner insufficiency. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the single- and double-bundle groups in mean side-to-side difference of posterior translation as measured with Telos stress radiography (4.2 ± 1.7 vs 3.9 ± 1.6 mm; P = .628). Rates of residual increased laxity greater than 5 mm were 22% in the single-bundle group and 21% in the double-bundle group. Regarding posterolateral rotatory instability, there were no differences between the 2 groups in mean side-to-side difference in the dial test (5.3° ± 2.7° vs 5.1° ± 2.4° at 30° of flexion [P = .800]; 6.7° ± 2.7° vs 6.7° ± 2.4° at 90° of flexion [P = .917]) or in varus stress radiography (1.2 ± 1.2 vs 1.3 ± 1.4 mm; P = .722). The Lysholm knee scores were 85.7 ± 7.6 in the single-bundle group and 87.7 ± 7.3 in the double-bundle group, and there was no significant difference between them (P = .392). There was also no difference between the groups in International Knee Documentation Committee knee score (P = .969); from this, the rates of abnormal and severely abnormal were 30% in the single-bundle group and 26% in the double-bundle group. CONCLUSION: In this series, double-bundle PCL reconstruction combined with posterolateral corner reconstruction did not appear to have advantages over single-bundle PCL reconstruction combined with posterolateral corner reconstruction with respect to the clinical outcomes or posterior knee stability.
URI
http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/39/3/481

http://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/92884
DOI
10.1177/0363546510385398
Appears in Collections:
1. 연구논문 > 1. College of Medicine > Dept. of Orthopedic Surgery
Yonsei Authors
사서에게 알리기
  feedback
Files in This Item:
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse