Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Background: There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstructio...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
| _version_ | 1825937714071994368 |
|---|---|
| author | Yoon, Kyoung Ho Kim, Jung Suk Park, Jae Young Park, Soo Yeon Yeak, Raymond Dieu Kiat Kim, Sang Gyun |
| author_facet | Yoon, Kyoung Ho Kim, Jung Suk Park, Jae Young Park, Soo Yeon Yeak, Raymond Dieu Kiat Kim, Sang Gyun |
| author_sort | Yoon, Kyoung Ho |
| collection | UPM |
| description | Background: There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L. Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them. Conclusion: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T11:03:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | upm.eprints-96448 |
| institution | Universiti Putra Malaysia |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T11:03:42Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | SAGE Publications |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | upm.eprints-964482023-02-07T02:03:04Z http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/96448/ Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Yoon, Kyoung Ho Kim, Jung Suk Park, Jae Young Park, Soo Yeon Yeak, Raymond Dieu Kiat Kim, Sang Gyun Background: There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L. Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them. Conclusion: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. SAGE Publications 2021 Article PeerReviewed Yoon, Kyoung Ho and Kim, Jung Suk and Park, Jae Young and Park, Soo Yeon and Yeak, Raymond Dieu Kiat and Kim, Sang Gyun (2021) Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 9 (2). pp. 1-8. ISSN 2325-9671 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2325967120985153?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed 10.1177/2325967120985153 |
| spellingShingle | Yoon, Kyoung Ho Kim, Jung Suk Park, Jae Young Park, Soo Yeon Yeak, Raymond Dieu Kiat Kim, Sang Gyun Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
| title | Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
| title_full | Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
| title_fullStr | Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
| title_short | Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
| title_sort | comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yoonkyoungho comparableclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenananatomictunnelandalowtibialtunnelinremnantpreservingposteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT kimjungsuk comparableclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenananatomictunnelandalowtibialtunnelinremnantpreservingposteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT parkjaeyoung comparableclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenananatomictunnelandalowtibialtunnelinremnantpreservingposteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT parksooyeon comparableclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenananatomictunnelandalowtibialtunnelinremnantpreservingposteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT yeakraymonddieukiat comparableclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenananatomictunnelandalowtibialtunnelinremnantpreservingposteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT kimsanggyun comparableclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweenananatomictunnelandalowtibialtunnelinremnantpreservingposteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction |