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
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Mar 9;12(1):4160.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07976-w.

Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction: a meta-analysis

Filippo Migliorini  1 , Andrea Pintore  2 , Filippo Spiezia  3 , Francesco Oliva  2 , Frank Hildebrand  4 , Nicola Maffulli  2   5   6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction: a meta-analysis

Filippo Migliorini et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction can be performed using single bundle (SB) and double bundle (DB) techniques. The present study investigated whether DB PCL reconstruction is superior to SB reconstruction in terms of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and joint stability. In December 2021 Embase, Google Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus databases were accessed. All clinical trials comparing SB versus DB reconstruction to address PCL insufficiency in skeletally mature patients were considered. Data from 483 procedures were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 31.0 (28.0 to 107.6) months, and the mean timespan between injury and surgery was 11.3 (6 to 37) months. The mean age of the patients was 29.3 ± 3.8 years. 85 of 483 patients (18%) were women. At a mean of 31.0 months post reconstruction, ROM (P = 0.03) was slightly greater in the SB group, while the Tegner score (P = 0.03) and the Telos stress (P = 0.04) were more favorable in the DB cohort. Similarity was found in instrumental laxity (P = 0.4) and Lysholm score (P = 0.3). The current evidence does not support the use of DB techniques for PCL reconstruction. Both methods could restore knee stability and motion with satisfactory short term patient reported outcome measures. Further high quality clinical trials are required to validate these results on a larger scale.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the literature search.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Funnel plot.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots of the comparisons.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arthur JR, Haglin JM, Makovicka JL, Chhabra A. Anatomy and biomechanics of the posterior cruciate ligament and their surgical implications. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2020;28(1):e1–e10. doi: 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000267. - DOI - PubMed
    1. LaPrade CM, Civitarese DM, Rasmussen MT, LaPrade RF. Emerging updates on the posterior cruciate ligament: A review of the current literature. Am. J. Sports Med. 2015;43(12):3077–3092. doi: 10.1177/0363546515572770. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tucker CJ, Joyner PW, Endres NK. Single versus double-bundle PCL reconstruction: Scientific rationale and clinical evidence. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet Med. 2018;11(2):285–289. doi: 10.1007/s12178-018-9486-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahmad CS, Cohen ZA, Levine WN, Gardner TR, Ateshian GA, Mow VC. Codominance of the individual posterior cruciate ligament bundles. An analysis of bundle lengths and orientation. Am. J. Sports Med. 2003;31(2):221–225. doi: 10.1177/03635465030310021101. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Edwards A, Bull AM, Amis AA. The attachments of the fiber bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament: An anatomic study. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(3):284–290. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.11.005. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types