Volume 10 - Spring Supplementary                   Ann Appl Sport Sci 2022, 10 - Spring Supplementary: 0-0 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rhatomy S, Utomo D N, Sigit Prakoeswa C R, Suroto H, Tinduh D, Notobroto H B, et al . Single-Bundle PCL Reconstruction with Remnant Preservation: Midterm Follow-up. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2022; 10 (S1)
URL: http://aassjournal.com/article-1-1015-en.html
1- Doctoral Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia , doktergustomrhatomy@yahoo.com
2- Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
3- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
4- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
5- Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
6- Virology and Immunology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. Stem Cell Research and Development Center, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya Indonesia.
Abstract:   (1170 Views)
Background. Remnant preservation was developed as a routine procedure for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction, but it is not easy.
Objectives. Our study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of a minimum 5-years follow-up of remnant preservation PCL reconstruction.
Methods. The study was a prospective cohort analysis of 44 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction with remnant preservation and a minimum 5-years follow-up. Outcome parameters included were modified Cincinnati score, Lysholm knee score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, degree of laxity (Posterior Drawer Test), single-leg hop test, and knee x-ray findings.
Results. The mean diameter of the hamstring autograft was 8 ± 2.04 mm. The mean of Lysholm knee scores increased from 65.15 ± 10.48 to 86.94 ± 4.80. The IKDC subjective score increased from 62.55 ± 18.10 (range, 40–65) to 88.65 ± 3.44 (range, 65–100) points, and the Modified Cincinnati Score from 63.32 ± 13.65 to 86.24 ± 1.64. For Posterior Drawer Test results after surgery, 37 patients (84%) had grade 1, 5 (11%) had grade 2, and 2 (4.5%) had grade 3 of laxity. For the range of motion measurements, 39 (88.6%) patients had normal knee status, 3 (6.8%) presented with flexion deficit >25o, and 1 (2.2%) had a 16o-25o deficit in flexion, and 1 (2.2%) had a 16o-25o deficit in extension. Eight cases had the infection at the local incision site, which was resolved with conservative treatment.
Conclusion. Remnant preservation in PCL reconstruction with standard and posteromedial portal at a minimum 5-year assessment showed satisfactory clinical, functional outcome, and radiological evaluation outcomes.
Full-Text [PDF 258 kb]   (398 Downloads)    
 
 
APPLICABLE REMARKS
  • The study recommends that PCL reconstruction using standard anterior and posteromedial portals is enough without the need for additional posterolateral portals.
  • The study showed that PCL reconstruction with remnant preservation would increase significant functional outcomes.

Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Kinesiology and Sport Injuries
Received: 2021/05/13 | Accepted: 2021/07/20 | Published: 2022/05/20 | ePublished: 2022/05/20

References
1. Chernchujit B, Samart S, Na Nakorn P. Remnant-Preserving Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Arthroscopic Transseptal, Rod and Pulley Technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2017;6(1):e15-e20. [DOI:10.1016/j.eats.2016.08.031] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Lee SH, Jung YB, Lee HJ, Jung HJ, Kim SH. Remnant preservation is helpful to obtain good clinical results in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of clinical results of three techniques. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5(4):278-286. [DOI:10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.278] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Jung YB, Jung HJ, Song KS, Kim JY, Lee HJ, Lee JS. Remnant posterior cruciate ligament-augmenting stent procedure for injuries in the acute or subacute stage. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(2):223-229. [DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.017] [PMID]
4. Eguchi A, Adachi N, Nakamae A, Usman MA, Deie M, Ochi M. Proprioceptive function after isolated single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation for chronic posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(3):303-308. [DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.12.020] [PMID]
5. Alentorn-Geli E, Stuart JJ, James Choi JH, Toth AP, Moorman CT, 3rd, Taylor DC. Posterolateral portal tibial tunnel drilling for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: technique and evaluation of safety and tunnel position. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(8):2474-2480. [DOI:10.1007/s00167-015-3958-0] [PMID]
6. Ahn JH, Ha CW. Posterior trans-septal portal for arthroscopic surgery of the knee joint. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(7):774-779. [DOI:10.1053/jars.2000.7681] [PMID]
7. Voos JE, Mauro CS, Wente T, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL. Posterior cruciate ligament: anatomy, biomechanics, and outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(1):222-231. [DOI:10.1177/0363546511416316] [PMID]
8. Chen T, Liu S, Chen J. All-Anterior Approach for Arthroscopic Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Remnant Preservation. Arthrosc Tech. 2016;5(6):e1203-e1207. [DOI:10.1016/j.eats.2016.07.011] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Katonis PG, Assimakopoulos AP, Agapitos MV, Exarchou EI. Mechanoreceptors in the posterior cruciate ligament. Histologic study on cadaver knees. Acta Orthop Scand. 1991;62(3):276-278. [DOI:10.3109/17453679108993609] [PMID]
10. Fowler PJ, Messieh SS. Isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15(6):553-557. [DOI:10.1177/036354658701500606] [PMID]
11. Shelbourne KD, Davis TJ, Patel DV. The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries. A prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(3):276-283. [DOI:10.1177/03635465990270030201] [PMID]
12. Makris CA, Georgoulis AD, Papageorgiou CD, Moebius UG, Soucacos PN. Posterior cruciate ligament architecture: evaluation under microsurgical dissection. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(6):627-632. [DOI:10.1053/jars.2000.9238] [PMID]
13. Wang H, Liu Z, Li Y, Peng Y, Xu W, Hu N, et al. Is Remnant Preservation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Superior to the Standard Technique? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:1652901. [DOI:10.1155/2019/1652901] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. 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. [DOI:10.1177/0363546510374452] [PMID]
15. Ahn JH, Chung YS, Oh I. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the posterior trans-septal portal. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(1):101-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2003.11.008 [DOI:10.1053/jars.2003.50017]
16. Ohishi T, Takahashi M, Suzuki D, Matsuyama Y. Arthroscopic approach to the posterior compartment of the knee using a posterior transseptal portal. World J Orthop. 2015;6(7):505-512. [DOI:10.5312/wjo.v6.i7.505] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Bach BR, Jr., Aadalen KJ, Mazzocca AD. An accessory portal for posterior cruciate ligament tibial insertion visualization. Arthroscopy. 2004;20 Suppl 2:155-158. [DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2004.04.029] [PMID]
18. Rhatomy S, Utomo DN, Suroto H, Mahyudin F. Knee laxity or loss of knee range of motion after PCL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-Analysis. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2020;8(2):1-24. [DOI:10.29252/aassjournal.938]

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Annals of Applied Sport Science

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb