Bob's ACL WWWBoard On-Line Knee Library |
Click here to return to the subsection PCL Injuries and Reconstructive Surgeries.
------
Document Title: Shearn-JBJS-Jun04.shtml
Article Title: Two-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: How Bundle Tension Depends on Femoral Placement
Authors: Jason T. Shearn, PhD, Edward S. Grood, PhD, Frank R. Noyes, MD and Martin S. Levy, PhD
Publication: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Edition)
Date: June 2004
Volume 86, pages 1262-1270
Keywords: PCL reconstruction, grafting, biomechanics, double-bundle graft, dual-bundle graft, kinematics, knee motion.
(Reference-denoting numbers appear in the same font and point size as the document text. As with all Knee Library documents, this article is provided in full-text form, complete with all figures and tables.)
Comments: This article shows that PCL reconstructions should be done with a double-bundle graft, because single-bundle reconstructions are not able to adequately reproduce the biomechanics of the PCL. The authors note that the location of the second bundle is important: placing it in a middle or distal position brought a notable reduction in the peak tensile loadings in the anterior bundle (which would be the only bundle if this were an obsolete single-bundle PCL graft), as well as what the authors termed cooperative load-sharing (i.e. the two bundles work together to carry the load, and so there is less likelihood of either bundle failing).
Abstract
Background: Clinically, one-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions frequently result in the return of abnormal posterior translation. We hypothesized that the return of posterior translation is caused by a nonuniform distribution of load among the graft fibers. The purpose of the present study was to determine how the femoral attachment location of the second bundle of a two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction affects the anterior bundle tension and the load distribution between the graft bundles.
Methods: One and two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (one one-bundle type and three two-bundle types) were performed in nineteen cadaveric knees. The grafts were tensioned to restore posterior translation to within ±1 mm of that of the intact knee at 90° of flexion while a 100-N posterior force was applied to the proximal part of the tibia. For each reconstruction, the total graft tension was a minimum of 2.3 times larger than the applied posterior force. Bundle tension and knee motions were measured as the knee was cycled from 5° to 120° of flexion while a 100-N posterior force was applied. Analysis of variance was used to compare the four reconstructions, and post hoc testing was performed with use of Fischer's protected least significant difference method.
Results: Two-bundle reconstructions involving a middle-distal or middle-middle second bundle significantly reduced the tension in the anterior bundle in comparison with the tension in the one-bundle (anterior-distal) reconstruction. The peak anterior-bundle tensions with the middle-distal and middle-middle second bundles were 43% and 37% less than the peak bundle tension for the one-bundle reconstruction (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). With the exception of the average bundle tension, the tension parameters calculated for the middle bundle decreased as the distance from the articular cartilage increased. The peak tensions for the middle-middle and middle-proximal bundles were 32% and 61% less than that for the middle-distal bundle (p = 0.028 and p = 0.001, respectively).
Conclusions: The femoral position of the second bundle significantly affected the tension in the anterior bundle and the load distribution. A second bundle placed in a middle or distal position resulted in a significant reduction in anterior bundle tension and in cooperative load-sharing (with the bundles functioning together). A proximal second bundle resulted in reciprocal loading (with one bundle functioning in flexion and one in extension), but the tension in the anterior bundle was not different from the tension in the one-bundle reconstruction.
Clinical Relevance: The present study demonstrated that a proximal-to-distal change in the femoral position markedly affects bundle tension and function. A middle placement of the second bundle appears to be the most ideal because the bundles exhibit cooperative load-sharing and the peak loads are significantly less when compared with other reconstructions.
To access the full text of this article, please click here.
There is no charge for viewing articles. However, a password is required.
If you do not already have a password, please e-mail Michael Frind at frind@execulink.com for one.
Prior to requesting a password, please make certain you have read the
Site Terms of Use
pertaining to this site.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Copyright Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, June 2004. For details regarding copyright as it applies to this page, please visit the page entitled Site Terms of Use and Aspects of Copyright on this site.
This website was created for the benefit of the world's largest knee-injury community, Bob's ACL WWWBoard (also known as the Kneeboard), accessible to everyone at http://factotem.org.
Documents posted on this site serve merely as a virtual library, and are intended solely for purposes of making access to high-quality peer-reviewed medical-journal articles convenient for all users of the Kneeboard. Knee-injury patients are hereby encouraged to discuss this material with their respective medical teams.
Click here to return to the Main Entrance Page of the Knee Library.
Looking for the Main Index Page of Bob's ACL WWWBoard? Click here!
To find recent postings on Bob's ACL WWWBoard, use the Search Engine.
To find older postings on Bob's ACL WWWBoard, use the On-Line Archive.
Site Terms of Use and Aspects of Copyright