Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Incheon Medical Center, #318-1 Songrim-Dong, Dong-Gu, Incheon, Korea.
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Mar;39(3):474-80. doi: 10.1177/0363546510382206. Epub 2010 Nov 23.
Several controversies exist regarding the superiority of double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction versus single-bundle (SB) reconstruction, although DB reconstruction has been shown to restore the intact knee kinematics more closely than SB reconstruction.
Double-bundle PCL reconstruction will present better results than SB reconstruction in postoperative outcomes.
Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.
The authors prospectively analyzed 25 cases of SB reconstruction and 28 cases of DB reconstruction using Achilles tendon allograft with a minimum 2-year follow-up. They compared preoperative and postoperative range of motion, posterior stability by posterior stress radiography, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form and knee examination form between the 2 groups.
There was no difference in range of motion, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, and IKDC subjective knee evaluation form between the 2 groups at last follow-up. The side-to-side difference in posterior translation significantly improved in both groups. There was no preoperative difference in posterior instability between the groups but a significant difference at last follow-up. On the IKDC knee examination form, the DB reconstruction group presented better results in grade distribution.
The DB reconstruction for PCL ruptures using the Achilles allograft showed better results in posterior stability and IKDC knee examination form than the SB reconstruction did. Although the difference of 1.4 mm in posterior stability was statistically significant, it is unclear that DB reconstruction is definitely superior to SB reconstruction clinically and functionally because there was no difference in the subjective scores.
尽管双束(DB)后交叉韧带(PCL)重建比单束(SB)重建更能接近地恢复完整膝关节运动学,但关于其优势仍存在一些争议。
与 SB 重建相比,双束 PCL 重建将在术后结果中呈现更好的结果。
随机对照试验;证据水平,2 级。
作者前瞻性分析了使用跟腱同种异体移植物进行 SB 重建的 25 例和 DB 重建的 28 例病例,随访时间至少为 2 年。他们比较了两组患者术前和术后的活动范围、后向应力 X 线片的后向稳定性、Tegner 活动评分、Lysholm 评分、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)主观膝关节评估表和膝关节检查表。
在末次随访时,两组患者的活动范围、Tegner 活动评分、Lysholm 评分和 IKDC 主观膝关节评估表无差异。两组患者的后向平移侧间差异均显著改善。两组患者的后向不稳定术前无差异,但末次随访时有显著差异。在 IKDC 膝关节检查表上,DB 重建组在分级分布方面表现出更好的结果。
使用跟腱同种异体移植物进行 PCL 断裂的 DB 重建在后部稳定性和 IKDC 膝关节检查表方面比 SB 重建显示出更好的结果。尽管后部稳定性的 1.4 毫米差异具有统计学意义,但由于主观评分没有差异,DB 重建在临床上和功能上是否确实优于 SB 重建尚不清楚。