Biomechanical evaluation of PCL reconstruction with suture augmentation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare kinematics and patellofemoral contact pressures of all inside and transtibial single bundle PCL reconstructions and determine if suture augmentation further improves the biomechanics of either technique.

METHODS

Cadaveric knees were tested with a posterior drawer force, and varus, valgus, internal and external moments at 30, 60, 90, and 120° of flexion. Displacement, rotation, and patellofemoral contact pressures were compared between: Intact, PCL-deficient, All-Inside PCL reconstruction with (AI-SA) and without (AI) suture augmentation, and transtibial PCL reconstruction with (TT-SA) and without (TT) suture augmentation.

RESULTS

Sectioning the PCL increased posterior tibial translation (PTT) from intact at 60° to 120° of flexion, p < 0.001. AI PCL reconstruction improved stability from the deficient-state but had greater PTT than intact at 90° of flexion, p < 0.05. Adding suture augmentation to the AI reconstruction further reduced PTT to levels that were not statistically different from intact at all flexion angles. TT reconstructed knees had greater PTT than intact knees at 60, 90, and 120° of flexion, p < 0.01. Adding suture augmentation (TT-SA) improved posterior stability to PTT levels that were not statistically different from intact knees at 30, 60, and 120° of flexion. Patellofemoral pressures were highest in PCL-deficient knees at increased angles of flexion and were reduced after reconstruction, but this was not significant.

CONCLUSION

In this time-zero study, both the all-inside and transtibial single bundle PCL reconstructions effectively reduce posterior translation from the deficient-PCL state. In addition, suture augmentation of both techniques provided further anterior-posterior stability.