Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jun;11(2):285-289.
doi: 10.1007/s12178-018-9486-z.

Single Versus Double-Bundle PCL Reconstruction: Scientific Rationale and Clinical Evidence

Christopher J Tucker  1   2 , Patrick W Joyner  3 , Nathan K Endres  4
Affiliations
Review

Single Versus Double-Bundle PCL Reconstruction: Scientific Rationale and Clinical Evidence

Christopher J Tucker et al. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose of review: The goal of this paper is to review the biomechanical and clinical rationale for single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The primary question is whether there has been demonstrated any clear biomechanical or clinical superiority of a double-bundle reconstruction over a single-bundle reconstruction.

Recent findings: There is some recent evidence demonstrating biomechanical superiority of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction; however, this is not definitive. Clinical superiority has not been clearly demonstrated as of yet. The primary question which served as the basis of this review remains unanswered. There is recent biomechanical data to suggest a potential benefit of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction, but not all studies are in agreement. Furthermore, the possible biomechanical advantages have not yet been borne out in clinical studies. At this point, we cannot clearly recommend one technique versus another and the decision should be left to the treating surgeon.

Keywords: Double bundle; Knee injury; Ligament reconstruction; Posterior cruciate ligament.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

    1. Petrigliano FA, McAllister DR. Isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2006;14(4):206–212. doi: 10.1097/01.jsa.0000212325.23560.d2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schulz MS, Russe K, Weiler A, Eichhorn HJ, Strobel MJ. Epidemiology of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(4):186–191. doi: 10.1007/s00402-002-0471-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shelbourne KD, et al. The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a prospective study. AJSM. 1999;27(3):276–283. - PubMed
    1. Margheritini F, Rihn J, Musahl V, Mariani PP, Harner C. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in the athlete: an anatomical, biomechanical and clinical review. Sports Med. 2002;32(6):393–408. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200232060-00004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parolie JM, et al. Long-term results of nonoperative treatment of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in the athlete. AJSM. 1986;14(1):35–38. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources