PDF icon Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2010; 23(2): 073-080
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1267468
SPECIAL FOCUS SECTION

© Thieme Medical Publishers

Transtibial Versus Inlay Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review

Jedediah H. May1 , Blake P. Gillette1 , Joseph A. Morgan1 , Aaron J. Krych1 , Michael J. Stuart1 , Bruce A. Levy1
  • 1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 October 2010 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

ABSTRACT

Optimal surgical technique for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction remains controversial. Authors have reported satisfactory outcomes with both transtibial and inlay techniques. Although biomechanical data has failed to demonstrate a difference between the two, there is little clinical data directly comparing transtibial versus inlay PCL reconstruction. Evidence-based treatment recommendations are therefore lacking. The purpose of this study was to perform an evidence-based systematic review comparing the clinical results of transtibial and inlay PCL reconstruction. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases for all relevant articles published from 1980 to 2010 on the clinical outcomes of transtibial and inlay PCL reconstruction was performed. Inclusion criteria included articles published in (1) English, (2) human subjects, (3) between the years 1980 and 2010, (4) minimum of 24-month follow-up, (5) measures of clinical and functional outcomes, and (6) isolated grade III PCL injuries. Exclusion criteria included (1) technique description only, (2) case reports, (3) multiligament knee injuries, (4) PCL bony avulsion, and (5) revision PCL surgery. Our review identified 26 relevant clinical studies. Twenty articles focused on transtibial PCL reconstruction, 3 articles focused on inlay PCL reconstruction, and 3 articles compared the two techniques. No prospective studies directly compared transtibial PCL reconstruction with inlay PCL reconstruction. Currently, there is a paucity of objective data comparing the outcomes of transtibial versus inlay PCL reconstruction. This systematic review demonstrated satisfactory clinical and functional results for both surgical techniques. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the best treatment strategy. At the present time, surgeon preference appears to be a reasonable option.

KEYWORDS

PCL - surgical management - transtibial - inlay

REFERENCES

  • 1 Noyes F R, Barber-Westin S. Posterior cruciate ligament replacement with a two-strand quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft and a tibial inlay technique.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;  87 1241-1252
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Wong T, Wang C J, Weng L H et al.. Functional outcomes of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of anteromedial and anterolateral trans-tibia approach.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;  129 315-321
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Jackson W F, van der Tempel W M, Salmon L J, Williams H A, Pinczewski L A. Endoscopically-assisted single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results at minimum ten-year follow-up.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;  90 1328-1333
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Margheritini F, Mauro C S, Rihn J A, Stabile K J, Woo S L, Harner C D. 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;  32 587-593
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 McAllister D R, Markolf K L, Oakes D A, Young C R, 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;  30 312-317
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Oakes D A, Markolf K L, McWilliams J, Young C R, McAllister D R. Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay and tibial tunnel techniques for reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. Analysis of graft forces.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;  84 938-944
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Kim S J, Jo S B, Kumar P, Oh K S. Comparison of single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadriceps tendon-bone autografts.  Arthroscopy. 2009;  25 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 MacGillivray J D, Stein B E, Park M, Allen A A, Wickiewicz T L, Warren R F. Comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: minimum 2-year follow-up.  Arthroscopy. 2006;  22 320-328
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Seon J K, Song E K. Reconstruction of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a clinical comparison of the transtibial and tibial inlay techniques.  Arthroscopy. 2006;  22 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nyland J, Hester P, Caborn D N. Double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft tissue: 2-year postoperative outcomes.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;  10 274-279
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Cooper D E, 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;  32 346-360
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hermans S, Corten K, Bellemans J. Long-term results of isolated anterolateral bundle reconstructions of the posterior cruciate ligament: a 6- to 12-year follow-up study.  Am J Sports Med. 2009;  37 1499-1507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Zhao J, Xiaoqiao H, He Y, Yang X, Liu C, Lu Z. Sandwich-style posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.  Arthroscopy. 2008;  24 650-659
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Sekiya J K, West R V, Ong B C, Irrgang J J, Fu F H, Harner C D. Clinical outcomes after isolated arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.  Arthroscopy. 2005;  21 1042-1050
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Chen C H, Chen W J, Shih C H. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a comparison of quadriceps tendon autograft and quadruple hamstring tendon graft.  Arthroscopy. 2002;  18 603-612
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Deehan D J, Salmon L J, Russell V J, Pinczewski L A. Endoscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results at minimum 2-year follow-up.  Arthroscopy. 2003;  19 955-962
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Houe T, Jørgensen U. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one- vs. two-tunnel technique.  Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;  14 107-111
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Wang C J, Chan Y S, Weng L H, Yuan L J, Chen H S. Comparison of autogenous and allogenous posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee.  Injury. 2004;  35 1279-1285
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Wang C J, Weng L H, Hsu C C, Chan Y S. Arthroscopic single- versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring autograft.  Injury. 2004;  35 1293-1299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Ahn J H, Yoo J C, Wang J H. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: double-loop hamstring tendon autograft versus Achilles tendon allograft—clinical results of a minimum 2-year follow-up.  Arthroscopy. 2005;  21 965-969
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ahn J H, Yang H S, Jeong W K, Koh K H. Arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with preservation of posterior cruciate ligament fibers: clinical results of minimum 2-year follow-up.  Am J Sports Med. 2006;  34 194-204
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Chan Y S, Yang S C, Chang C H et al.. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament with use of a quadruple hamstring tendon graft with 3- to 5-year follow-up.  Arthroscopy. 2006;  22 762-770
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Chen C H, Chuang T Y, Wang K C, Chen W J, Shih C H. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: results with a minimum 4-year follow-up.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;  14 1045-1054
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Hatayama K, Higuchi H, Kimura M, Kobayashi Y, Asagumo H, Takagishi K. A comparison of arthroscopic single- and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: review of 20 cases.  Am J Orthop. 2006;  35 568-571
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Jenner J M, van der Hart C P, Willems W J. Mid-term results of arthroscopic reconstruction in chronic posterior cruciate ligament instability.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;  14 848-853
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Adachi N, Ochi M, Uchio Y, Iwasa J, Ishikawa M, Shinomiya R. Temporal change of joint position sense after posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using multi-stranded hamstring tendons.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;  15 2-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Wu C H, Chen A C, Yuan L J et al.. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament by using a quadriceps tendon autograft: a minimum 5-year follow-up.  Arthroscopy. 2007;  23 420-427
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Zhao J, Huangfu X. Arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: retrospective review of 4- versus 7-strand hamstring tendon graft.  Knee. 2007;  14 301-305
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Jung Y B, Tae S K, Jung H J, Lee K H. Replacement of the torn posterior cruciate ligament with a mid-third patellar tendon graft with use of a modified tibial inlay method.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;  86 1878-1883
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Bruce A LevyM.D. 

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic

200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905

Email: Levy.Bruce@mayo.edu