A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques

Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
The American Journal of Sports Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.7). 08/2005; 33(7):976-81. DOI: 10.1177/0363546504273046
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The efficacy of using a double-bundle versus single-bundle graft for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has not been demonstrated.
A double-bundle graft restores knee kinematics better than a single-bundle graft does in tibial inlay PCL reconstructions.
Controlled laboratory study.
Eight cadaveric knees were subjected to 6 cycles from a 40-N anterior reference point to a 100-N posterior translational force at 10 degrees , 30 degrees , 60 degrees , and 90 degrees of flexion. Testing was performed for the intact and posterior cruciate deficient knee as well as for both reconstructed conditions. Achilles tendons, divided into 2 equal sections, were prepared as both single-bundle and double-bundle grafts. Both grafts were employed in the same knee, and the order of graft reconstruction was randomized.
There were no statistical differences in translation between the intact state and either of the reconstructions (P > .05) or between either of the reconstructions at any flexion angle (P > .05).
No differences in translation between the 2 graft options were identified.
The use of a double-bundle graft may not offer any advantages over a single-bundle graft for tibial inlay posterior cruciate reconstructions.

Download full-text


Available from: Helen Kambic, Aug 18, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Such high technology areas as artificial intelligence and microprocessor-based control systems have realized rapid advancement in recent years. The net result of this improved state-of-the-art is that unmanned, untethered, submersible vehicles are approaching a transition point from prototype systems demonstrating various technologies to the stage where it is opportune to investigate practical applications for both commercial and military markets; the goal being an off-the-shelf, unmanned, untethered vehicle system. Recognizing the fact that a limited number of these vehicles have been manufactured for both military and commercial applications, work remains to be accomplished before the unmanned, untethered submersible vehicle is recognized as a commercially viable system. This paper will present a systems overview, starting with practical applications for an untethered ROV and discussion of the integration of new technologies unique to these untethered submersibles such as artificial intelligence, preprogrammed microprocessor controls, and energy sources with existing tethered vehicle systems including propulsion, video and acoustic sensors, and work packages. The emphasis will be not only what the required capabilities of these subsystems are but also their integration into a cost effective, reliable, and maintainable system that meets commercial and military requirements.
    Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology, Proceedings of the 1985 4th International Symposium on; 07/1985
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Successful posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction is challenging because of the complex structures and difficult reconstruction techniques that are required. The reported results have been inconsistent. Variables that affect the results of surgery to restore PCL function include combined associated ligaments injury, difficulty to duplicate PCL anatomy, wide variation in broad femoral insertion footprint, difficulty in accurate placement of the transtibial tunnel, tunnel erosion, high internal graft stresses and graft elongation. The outcome of conservative treatment of isolated PCL injuries with mild or moderate laxity is generally acceptable. However, more severe straight posterior laxity or combined injury patterns usually lead to a worse prognosis. Surgical reconstruction for PCL can achieve satisfactory results for most patients if adequate surgical principles and techniques are followed. Recent studies on the anatomy and the biomechanics of PCL have led to a better understanding of its biomechanical properties for the reconstruction. It has been generally agreed that surgical reconstruction is indicated for symptomatic severe posterior knee instability and multiple ligament injuries for better functional recovery after PCL injuries. Accepted surgical techniques for the treatment of PCL tears include primary repair for PCL avulsion fracture, as well as open or arthroscopic reconstruction using the transtibial or tibial inlay technique. Controversy continues over the choice of graft tissue, one or two bundle reconstruction, location of tunnel placement, knee position when securing the graft, and fixation technique. From the accumulated clinical experience and surgical concepts in clinical practice, we have developed various surgical techniques to improve the outcomes of reconstruction.
    Chang Gung medical journal 11/2006; 30(6):480-92.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Isolated injuries of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) are rare in comparison to other ligamentous knee injuries, resulting in a lack of evidence-based literature regarding their treatment. Although consensus exists regarding the nonoperative management of asymptomatic grade I injuries, the treatment of high-grade symptomatic PCL insufficiency remains a matter of debate. A variety of reconstructive procedures have been advocated on the basis of biomechanical data, however, the clinical benefit of these anatomic reconstructive techniques have yet to be conclusively proven in randomized trials. This article attempts to provide the treating physician with a concise overview of the etiology and diagnosis of isolated PCL injuries as well as an objective review of contemporary surgical treatment options and outcomes as reported in the current literature.
    Sports medicine and arthroscopy review 01/2007; 14(4):206-12. DOI:10.1097/01.jsa.0000212325.23560.d2 · 1.98 Impact Factor
Show more