PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2019; 54(05): 531-539
DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2017.12.010
Artigo Original | Original Article
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Thieme Revnter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Thick Graft Versus Double-Bundle Technique on Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Experimental Biomechanical Study with Cadavers[*]

Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: português | English
João Alberto Ramos Maradei-Pereira 
1   Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, PA, Brasil
2   Clínica dos Acidentados, Hospital Maradei, Belém, PA, Brasil
3   Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM-41), Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Alexandre Estevão Vamos Kokron
3   Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM-41), Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
César Augusto Martins Pereira
3   Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM-41), Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Marco Martins Amatuzzi
3   Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM-41), Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

29. September 2017

14. Dezember 2017

Publikationsdatum:
29. Oktober 2019 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the biomechanical effect of graft thickness compared with the double-bundle technique on posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction in human cadaveric knees.

Methods A total of 9 human cadaveric knees were tested in 5 conditions: intact knee (INT); single-bundle reconstruction with a 10-mm quadriceps tendon (SB); double-bundle reconstruction with a 10 mm-quadriceps tendon for the anterolateral bundle and a 7-mm doubled semitendinosus tendon for the posteromedial bundle (DB); single-bundle reconstruction with a 10-mm quadriceps tendon plus a 7-mm doubled semitendinosus tendon (SBT); and PCL-deficient (NoPCL). The posterior tibial translation (PTT) was measured in response to a 134-N posterior tibial load at 0∘, 30∘, 60∘ e 90∘ of knee flexion.

Results The PTT values of the DB and SBT techniques were always significantly lower (better stability) than those of the SB technique. The PTT values of the SBT technique were significantly lower than those of the DB technique at 60∘ (p = 0.005) and 90∘ (p = 0.001).

Conclusions Graft enlargement improves knee stability in isolated PCL reconstructions, whereas the graft division in the two-bundle technique worsens this stability at 60∘ and 90∘ of knee flexion. The findings of the present study suggest that knee stability in PCL reconstructions may be improved with the use of thicker grafts in the SB technique rather than performing the DB technique.

Keywords

knee injuries - posterior cruciate ligament - biomechanical phenomena - cadaver - posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

* Study conducted at the Medical Research Laboratory (LIM-41), Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. Originally published by Elsevier.


 

  • Referências

  • 1 Harner CD, Höher J. Evaluation and treatment of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 1998; 26 (03) 471-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kannus P, Bergfeld J, Järvinen M. , et al. Injuries to the posterior cruciate ligament of the knee. Sports Med 1991; 12 (02) 110-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Parolie JM, Bergfeld JA. Long-term results of nonoperative treatment of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in the athlete. Am J Sports Med 1986; 14 (01) 35-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dejour H, Walch G, Peyrot J, Eberhard P. Histoire naturelle de la rupture du ligament croisé postérieur. [The natural history of rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 1988; 74 (01) 35-43
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Geissler WB, Whipple TL. Intraarticular abnormalities in association with posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 1993; 21 (06) 846-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kohen RB, Sekiya JK. Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (12) 1470-1477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hammoud S, Reinhardt KR, Marx RG. Outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament treatment: a review of the evidence. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2010; 18 (04) 280-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ahmad CS, Cohen ZA, Levine WN, Gardner TR, Ateshian GA, Mow VC. Codominance of the individual posterior cruciate ligament bundles. An analysis of bundle lengths and orientation. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31 (02) 221-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kokron AWV, Hernandez AJ, Camanho GL, Amatuzzi MM. Biomechanical evaluation of reconstruction laxity with one and two bundles of graft in isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury. In: 2001 International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopedic Sports Medicine – Isakos, 2001 . Presentation outlines & Abstracts. 2001. p. 4–11.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Beynnon BD, Amis AA. In vitro testing protocols for the cruciate ligaments and ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998; 6 (Suppl. 01) S70-S76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Harner CD, Janaushek MA, Ma CB, Kanamori A, Vogrin TM, Woo SL. The effect of knee flexion angle and application of an anterior tibial load at the time of graft fixation on the biomechanics of a posterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (04) 460-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ma CB, Kanamori A, Vogrin TM, Woo SL, Harner CD. Measurement of posterior tibial translation in the posterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee: significance of the shift in the reference position. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31 (06) 843-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chahla J, Moatshe G, Cinque ME. , et al. Single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 441 patients at a minimum 2 years' follow-up. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (11) 2066-2080
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Milles JL, Nuelle CW, Pfeiffer F. , et al. Biomechanical comparison: single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (04) 347-351
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jain V, Goyal A, Mohindra M, Kumar R, Joshi D, Chaudhary D. A comparative analysis of arthroscopic double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (11) 1555-1561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Xu Y, Yin Y, Wang JQ, Ao YF. [Comparison of single and double bundle isolate posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2013; 51 (03) 247-251
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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
  • 26 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Apsingi S, Nguyen T, Bull AM, Unwin A, Deehan DJ, Amis AA. Control of laxity in knees with combined posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner deficiency: comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with modified Larson posterolateral corner reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (03) 487-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 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. ScientificWorldJournal 2015; 2015: 751465
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fanelli GC, Beck JD, Edson CJ. Single compared to double-bundle PCL reconstruction using allograft tissue. J Knee Surg 2012; 25 (01) 59-64
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Harner CD, Xerogeanes JW, Livesay GA. , et al. The human posterior cruciate ligament complex: an interdisciplinary study. Ligament morphology and biomechanical evaluation. Am J Sports Med 1995; 23 (06) 736-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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 (06) 833-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zhao J, Huangfu X. Arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Retrospective review of 4- versus 7-strand hamstring tendon graft. Knee 2007; 14 (04) 301-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zhao J, Xiaoqiao H, He Y, Yang X, Liu C, Lu Z. Sandwich-style posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (06) 650-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chen B, Gao S. Double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a non-hardware suspension fixation technique and 8 strands of autogenous hamstring tendons. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (07) 777-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar