A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Arthroscopic Single-Bundle and Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions Preserving Remnant Fibers

Abstract

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.

Outcome of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the single- versus double bundle technique: A meta-analysis

“…A further study was judged to have a high risk of performance bias and detection bias (all procedures and outcome assessments were performed by the same author). 20 In two studies, over 5% of patients were lost to follow-up. 20,22 A single study reported adequately generated allocation concealment.…”

“…20 In two studies, over 5% of patients were lost to follow-up. 20,22 A single study reported adequately generated allocation concealment. 22 MINORS quality scores of non-RCTs are presented in Table 2.…”

“…[20][21][22] Sensitivity analyses Table 3 indicated that the double bundle technique was significantly superior in patients with PCL isolated injuries (n ¼ 244; P ¼ 0.001 for all studies; P < 0.001 for RCTs; Table 3). 9,20,[22][23][24]29 There were no significant between-group differences in knee stability at 30 (n ¼ 138) 9,21,26,27 or ROM (Table 4) (n ¼ 88). 20,21 Studies using the Lysholm test found no significant between-group difference in outcome (n ¼ 372; Figure 3).…”

“…9,20,[22][23][24]29 There were no significant between-group differences in knee stability at 30 (n ¼ 138) 9,21,26,27 or ROM (Table 4) (n ¼ 88). 20,21 Studies using the Lysholm test found no significant between-group difference in outcome (n ¼ 372; Figure 3). 9,[21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29] Those reporting the Tegner activity scale indicated significantly better outcomes after doublerather than single bundle reconstruction (n ¼ 247; OR À0.34, 95% CI À0.68, 0.00; Figure 4).…”

“…9,[21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29] Those reporting the Tegner activity scale indicated significantly better outcomes after doublerather than single bundle reconstruction (n ¼ 247; OR À0.34, 95% CI À0.68, 0.00; Figure 4). 9,[21][22][23]26 The IKDC examination was reported in five studies (n ¼ 222) [20][21][22][23]28 with outcomes categorized as grade A or grades C/D (Table 4). There were significantly more patients with grade A outcomes in the double bundle group than in the single bundle group (P ¼ 0.002).…”