The role of isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in knees with combined posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral complex injury.

PURPOSE

This is a meta-analysis comparing biomechanical outcomes to determine whether an isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction can restore normal knee kinematics in a combined PCL/posterolateral complex (PLC) injury and whether double-bundle (DB) PCL reconstruction is superior in controlling posterior and rotational laxity compared with single-bundle (SB) PCL reconstruction in a PCL/PLC-deficient knee.

METHODS

A number of electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published through August 2016 that compared biomechanical outcomes of PCL reconstruction in patients who underwent reconstruction for combined PCL/PLC deficiencies. Data were searched, extracted, analysed, and assessed for quality according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, and biomechanical outcomes were evaluated using various outcome values. The results are presented as relative ratios for binary outcomes and standard mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five biomechanical studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were significant differences in laxities such as posterior tibial translation (PTT), external rotation, varus rotation, and PTT coupled with external rotation in the isolated PCL reconstruction group compared with the native PCL group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in laxities such as PTT, external rotation, or varus rotation between the SB and DB PCL reconstruction groups.

CONCLUSION

Isolated PCL reconstruction, whether SB or DB, could not restore normal knee kinematics in the PCL/PLC-deficient knee. In such cases, residual laxity after isolated PCL reconstruction can be controlled successfully with PLC reconstruction. Therefore, simultaneous PCL and PLC reconstruction is recommended for patients with combined PCL/PLC injury.