• Satoshi Ochiai, Tetsuo Hagino, Shinya Senga, Takashi Yamashita, Takashi Ando, and Hirotaka Haro.
• The Sports Medicine and Knee Center, National Hospital Organization, Kofu National Hospital, 11-35 Tenjin-cho, Kofu, Yamanashi, 400-8533, Japan. hxcmk230@ybb.ne.jp.
• Int Orthop. 2016 Sep 1; 40 (9): 1891-8.

PurposeThis study evaluated the treatment outcome of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction using the Medical Outcome Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), a patient-based quality of life (QOL) questionnaire comparing it with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.MethodsPatients who underwent reconstruction at our center for PCL (n = 24) or ACL (n = 197) injury were studied. The patients were evaluated using SF-36, visual analogue scale (VAS) for knee pain, Lysholm scale, posterior or anterior tibial translation and range of motion (ROM) before surgery until 24 months after surgery. Results were compared.ResultsIn the ACL group, all evaluation methods showed significant improvement after surgery. In the PCL group, however, improvement was observed in only three of eight subscales of the SF-36, Lysholm score and posterior tibial translation after surgery. In intergroup comparison, the PCL group showed inferior performance in three subscales of the SF-36, Lysholm score and ROM for flexion compared with the ACL group.ConclusionsThe surgical outcome of PCL reconstruction was inferior to that of ACL reconstruction both in patient-based and conventional doctor-based assessments. An improved surgical technique for PCL is required.

21 keywords...

hide…