Search

Abstract Isolated and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries are associated with severe limitations in daily, professional, and sports activities as well as with devastating long-term effects for the knee joint. As the number of primary and recurrent PCL injuries increases, so does the body of literature, with high-quality evidence evolving in recent years. However, the debate about the ideal treatment approach such as; operative vs. non-operative; single-bundle vs. double-bundle reconstruction; transtibial vs. tibial inlay technique, continues. Ultimately, the goal in the treatment of PCL injuries is restoring native knee kinematics and preventing residual posterior and combined rotatory knee laxity through an individualized approach. Certain demographic, anatomical, and surgical risk factors for failures in operative treatment have been identified. Failures after PCL reconstruction are increasing, confronting the treating surgeon with challenges including the need for revision PCL reconstruction. Part 2 of the evidence-based update on the management of primary and recurrent PCL injuries will summarize the outcomes of operative and non-operative treatment including indications, surgical techniques, complications, and risk factors for recurrent PCL deficiency. This paper aims to support surgeons in decision-making for the treatment of PCL injuries by systematically evaluating underlying risk factors, thus preventing postoperative complications and recurrent knee laxity. Level of evidence V.

Purpose Studies comparing single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions often include a combined analysis of anatomic and non-anatomic techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the revision rates between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstructions in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register with regard to surgical variables as determined by the anatomic ACL reconstruction scoring checklist (AARSC). Methods Patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register who underwent either single- or double-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft during the period 2007–2014 were included. The follow-up period started with primary ACL reconstruction, and the outcome measure was set as revision surgery. An online questionnaire based on the items of the AARSC was used to determine the surgical technique implemented in the single-bundle procedures. These were organized into subgroups based on surgical variables, and the revision rates were compared with the double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated and adjusted for confounders by Cox regression. Results A total of 22,460 patients were included in the study, of which 21,846 were single-bundle and 614 were double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction had a revision frequency of 2.0% (n = 12) and single-bundle 3.2% (n = 689). Single-bundle reconstruction had an increased risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle [adjusted HR 1.98 (95% CI 1.12–3.51), p = 0.019]. The subgroup analysis showed a significantly increased risk of revision surgery in patients undergoing single-bundle with anatomic technique using transportal drilling [adjusted HR 2.51 (95% CI 1.39–4.54), p = 0.002] compared with double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Utilizing a more complete anatomic technique according to the AARSC lowered the hazard rate considerably when transportal drilling was performed but still resulted in significantly increased risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle ACL reconstruction [adjusted HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.04–3.38), p = 0.037]. Conclusions Double-bundle ACL reconstruction is associated with a lower risk of revision surgery than single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Single-bundle procedures performed using transportal femoral drilling technique had significantly higher risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle. However, a reference reconstruction with transportal drilling defined as a more complete anatomic reconstruction reduces the risk of revision surgery considerably. Level of evidence III.