Augmentation or reconstruction of PCL? A quantitative review

Buono, Angelo Del; Radmilovic, Juri; Gargano, Giuseppe; Gatto, S.; Maffulli, Nicola

doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2418-y

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering the rate of normal (A)/nearly normal (B) IKDC outcomes as primary end point, a recent systematic review has reported an average success rate of 89.8% (SD 4.2) rate was after PCL augmentation, and 80.1% after reconstruction. Our IKDC outcomes are slightly lower to those reported by Del Buono et al 25 , but the follow up of the present study is longer, and almost all patients are athletes. Specifically, 16 patients (72.7%) returned to pre-injury sport activity level, and 3 (13.6%) returned to a lower level.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 91%

Acute augmentation for interstitial insufficiency of the posterior cruciate ligament. A two to five year clinical and radiographic study

Chan¹,

Kong²,

Buono

et al. 2019

Muscle Ligaments and Tendons J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: there is need to ascertain clinical and imaging outcomes after posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) augmentation. Methods: we performed a retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and functional data on 21 physically active males who underwent arthroscopic trans-tibial augmentation of the PCL for symptomatic grade III PCL insufficiency. The average follow-up time was 50 months (24-60 months). The Lysholm knee score was administered to all the patients, ligament laxity was evaluated with the posterior drawer test, the KT-1000 arthrometer, and the anteromedial tibial step-off. Standing antero-posterior, lateral and Merchant's view radiographs were taken preoperatively and at annual follow-up. Results: post-operatively, ligament laxity and Lysholm knee scores were significantly improved than at baseline. Sixteen patients (73%) returned to pre-injury sport activity level, 3 patients (14%) returned to a lower level, 2 had to stop. We found radiographic degenerative changes in 5 of 22 affected knees (23%), with evidence of a statistically significant association between the occurrence of degenerative changes and the interval time from injury to surgery and duration of the follow up. Conclusions: arthroscopic transtibial single bundle autograft hamstring augmentation significantly improves the function of the knee, with an overall satisfactory outcome of 82% at 2-5 years from surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 91%

Acute augmentation for interstitial insufficiency of the posterior cruciate ligament. A two to five year clinical and radiographic study

Chan¹,

Kong²,

Buono

et al. 2019

Muscle Ligaments and Tendons J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, no differences have been demonstrated between remnant-preserving and conventional techniques. 38 …”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolated posterior cruciate ligament tears: an update of management

Vaquero-Picado

Rodríguez-Merchán

2017

EFORT Open Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tears are much less frequent than anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears.Abrupt posterior tibial translation (such as dashboard impact), falls in hyperflexion and direct hyperextension trauma are the most frequent mechanisms of production.The anterolateral bundle represents two-thirds of PCL mass and is reconstructed in single-bundle techniques.The PCL has an intrinsic capability for healing. This is the reason why, nowadays, the majority of isolated PCL tears are managed non-operatively, with rehabilitation and bracing.Recent studies have focused on double-bundle reconstruction techniques, as they seem to restore knee kinematics.No significant clinical differences have been established between single versus double-bundle techniques, autograft versus allograft, transtibial tunnel versus tibial inlay techniques or remnant-preserving versus remnant-release techniques.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:89-96. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160009

show abstract

“…This system is reliable and validated, and it has widely been used in the orthopaedic literature. [22][23][24][25][26][27] We point out that this is not a meta-analysis, but a descriptive quantitative review, and, according to the literature and relatively short-term available studies, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%