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
. 2023 May 1;31(2):e260740.
doi: 10.1590/1413-785220233102e260740. eCollection 2023.

POSTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: ARE THE RESULTS SIMILAR TO ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION?

Marcos Barbieri Mestriner  1 , Fábio Eidi Hirosse  2 , Nayra Deise Dos Anjos Rabelo  3 , Alfredo Dos Santos Netto  1   4 , Victor Marques DE Oliveira  1   4 , Ricardo DE Paula Leite Cury  1   4
Affiliations

POSTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: ARE THE RESULTS SIMILAR TO ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION?

Marcos Barbieri Mestriner et al. Acta Ortop Bras. .

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Objective: To report and compare the results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

Methods: In total, 42 patients were retrospectively evaluated, 20 with isolated PCL injuries (group 1) and 22 with isolated ACL ones (group 2) who were subjected to arthroscopic ligament reconstruction with autologous grafts and followed up for at least two years. To evaluate the results in group 1, objective IKDC and Lysholm scores, posterior drawer tests, and evaluations by a KT-1000 arthrometer were used, whereas for group 2, subjective IKDC and Lysholm score and the Lachman test were employed. To compare groups, objective IKDC and Lysholm scores and assessment via a KT-1000 arthrometer were considered.

Results: Intragroup analysis showed improved results for all variables (p < 0.001) in both groups. Comparisons between groups showed a significant difference in objective IKDC scores (p < 0.001), but no such disparities for Lysholm ones (p = 0.052), clinical tests (p = 0.058) or evaluation by KT-1000 (p = 0.129).

Conclusion: Treatment restored knee stability and function in both groups. Comparisons between groups showed that PCL reconstructions had inferior results than ACL ones according to patients' objective IKDC scores. Level of Evidence II, Retrospective Study.

Objetivo: Reportar e comparar os resultados da reconstrução do ligamento cruzado posterior (LCP) e do ligamento cruzado anterior (LCA).

Métodos: Foram avaliados retrospectivamente 42 pacientes: 20 com lesão isolada do LCP (grupo 1) e 22 com lesão isolada do LCA (grupo 2), submetidos à reconstrução ligamentar artroscópica com enxertos autólogos e acompanhados por pelo menos dois anos. Para avaliação dos resultados no grupo 1, foram utilizados o escore do International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objetivo, escore de Lysholm, teste da gaveta posterior e avaliação pelo artrômetro KT-1000; e, para o grupo 2, foram utilizados o IKDC subjetivo, escore Lysholm e teste de Lachman. Para comparação entre os grupos, foram considerados o IKDC objetivo, escore Lysholm e avaliação pelo artrômetro KT-1000.

Resultados: Ambos os grupos demonstraram melhora dos resultados na análise intragrupo em todas as variáveis (p < 0,001). Na comparação intergrupos, observou-se diferença significativa no IKDC objetivo (p < 0,001), não sendo observada diferença no escore Lysholm (p = 0,052), nos testes clínicos (p = 0,058) ou na avaliação pelo KT-1000 (p = 0,129).

Conclusão: A estabilidade e função do joelho foram restauradas em ambos os grupos. Na comparação intergrupos, a reconstrução do LCP apresentou resultados inferiores à reconstrução do LCA no critério IKDC objetivo. Nível de Evidência II, Estudo Retrospectivo.

Keywords: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Knee; Posterior Cruciate Ligament; Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare no potential conflict of interest related to this article.

References

    1. Pache S, Aman ZS, Kennedy M, Nakama GY, Moatsche G, Ziegler C, LaPrade RF. Posterior cruciate ligament current concepts review. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018;6(1):8–18. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim YM, Lee CA, Matava MJ. Clinical results of arthroscopic single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(2):425–434. - PubMed
    1. Chahla J, Moatshe G, Cinque ME, Dornan GJ, Mitchell JJ, Ridley TJ, LaPrade RF. Single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions a systematic review and meta-analysis of 441 patients at a minimum 2 years&apos; follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(11):2066–2080. - 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. - PubMed
    1. Devitt BM, Dissanayake R, Clair J, Napier RJ, Porter TJ, Feller JA, Webster KE. Isolated posterior cruciate reconstruction results in improved functional outcome but low rates of return to preinjury level of sport a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(10):2325967118804478–2325967118804478. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources