• Chung-Yu Chen, Chen-Heng Hsu, Poyu Chen, Kuo-Yao Hsu, Cheng-Pang Yang, Huan Sheu, Shih-Sheng Chang, and Chih-Hao Chiu.
• Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
• Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Mar 27; 60 (4).

AbstractThere is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of double-bundle PCL reconstruction utilizing anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent double-bundle PCL reconstruction between Jan 2019 and Jan 2022, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (n = 36). Based on the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, patients were categorized into two groups: anatomic placement (group A; n = 18) and low tunnel placement (group L; n = 18). We compared the range of motion, stability test, complications, and side-to-side differences in tibial posterior translation using kneeling stress radiography between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding clinical outcomes or complication rates. No significant differences in the posterior drawer test and side-to-side difference on kneeling stress radiography (2.5 ± 1.2 mm in group A vs. 3.7 ± 2.0 mm in group L; p = 0.346). In conclusion, the main findings of this study indicate that both anatomic tunnel and low tibial tunnel placements in double-bundle PCL reconstruction demonstrated comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiologic outcomes, with similar overall complication rates at the 2-year follow-up.

31 keywords...

hide…