All-Inside PCL Reconstruction

Abstract

Many different techniques with multiple graft types have been described for the reconstruction of the injured posterior cruciate ligament (PCL); autograft versus allograft, single- versus double-bundle, open inlay versus arthroscopic inlay versus arthroscopic transtibial, and recently described the arthroscopic “all-inside” socket technique. Reported clinical outcomes have demonstrated no significant difference in any of these PCL reconstruction techniques, likely because of the heterogeneity in injury characteristics and patient population. The ideal surgical technique should be safe, simple, and reproducible while allowing treatment of concomitant knee injuries resulting and return to function.

Keywords

posterior cruciate ligament - PCL - PCL reconstruction - all-inside PCL reconstruction

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 06. November 2020

Angenommen: 12. November 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
05. Februar 2021

• References

• 1 Prince MR, Stuart MJ, King AH, Sousa PL, Levy BA. All-inside posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: GraftLink technique. Arthrosc Tech 2015; 4 (05) e619-e624
• 2 Levy BA. Pearls: how I create the tibial socket for PCL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (05) 1113-1121
• 3 Levy BA, Fanelli GC, Miller MD, Stuart MJ. Advances in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 2015; 64: 543-554
• 4 Cosgarea AJ, Jay PR. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2001; 9 (05) 297-307
• 5 Levy BA, Boyd JL, Stuart MJ. Surgical treatment of acute and chronic anterior and posterior cruciate ligament and lateral side injuries of the knee. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2011; 19 (02) 110-119
• 6 Berg EE. Posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1995; 11 (01) 69-76
• 7 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 (02) 73-79
• 8 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
• 9 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
• 10 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
• 11 Sekiya JK, West RV, Ong BC, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD. Clinical outcomes after isolated arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (09) 1042-1050
• 12 Kohen RB, Sekiya JK. Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (12) 1470-1477
• 13 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
• 14 Freychet B, Desai VS, Sanders TL. et al. All-inside posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: surgical technique and outcome. Clin Sports Med 2019; 38 (02) 285-295