Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction can be performed using single bundle (SB) and double bundle (DB) techniques. The present study investigated whether DB PCL reconstruction is superior to SB reconstruction in terms of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and joint stability. In December 2021 Embase, Google Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus databases were accessed. All clinical trials comparing SB versus DB reconstruction to address PCL insufficiency in skeletally mature patients were considered. Data from 483 procedures were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 31.0 (28.0 to 107.6) months, and the mean timespan between injury and surgery was 11.3 (6 to 37) months. The mean age of the patients was 29.3 ± 3.8 years. 85 of 483 patients (18%) were women. At a mean of 31.0 months post reconstruction, ROM (P = 0.03) was slightly greater in the SB group, while the Tegner score (P = 0.03) and the Telos stress (P = 0.04) were more favorable in the DB cohort. Similarity was found in instrumental laxity (P = 0.4) and Lysholm score (P = 0.3). The current evidence does not support the use of DB techniques for PCL reconstruction. Both methods could restore knee stability and motion with satisfactory short term patient reported outcome measures. Further high quality clinical trials are required to validate these results on a larger scale.

Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. a meta-analysis / Migliorini, Filippo; Pintore, Andrea; Spiezia, Filippo; Oliva, Francesco; Hildebrand, Frank; Maffulli, Nicola. - In: SCIENTIFIC REPORTS. - ISSN 2045-2322. - 12:1(2022), pp. 1-9. [10.1038/s41598-022-07976-w]

Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. a meta-analysis

Maffulli, Nicola
2022

Abstract

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction can be performed using single bundle (SB) and double bundle (DB) techniques. The present study investigated whether DB PCL reconstruction is superior to SB reconstruction in terms of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and joint stability. In December 2021 Embase, Google Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus databases were accessed. All clinical trials comparing SB versus DB reconstruction to address PCL insufficiency in skeletally mature patients were considered. Data from 483 procedures were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 31.0 (28.0 to 107.6) months, and the mean timespan between injury and surgery was 11.3 (6 to 37) months. The mean age of the patients was 29.3 ± 3.8 years. 85 of 483 patients (18%) were women. At a mean of 31.0 months post reconstruction, ROM (P = 0.03) was slightly greater in the SB group, while the Tegner score (P = 0.03) and the Telos stress (P = 0.04) were more favorable in the DB cohort. Similarity was found in instrumental laxity (P = 0.4) and Lysholm score (P = 0.3). The current evidence does not support the use of DB techniques for PCL reconstruction. Both methods could restore knee stability and motion with satisfactory short term patient reported outcome measures. Further high quality clinical trials are required to validate these results on a larger scale.
2022
adult; female; humans; knee joint; male; treatment outcome; anterior cruciate ligament injuries; posterior cruciate ligament; posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. a meta-analysis / Migliorini, Filippo; Pintore, Andrea; Spiezia, Filippo; Oliva, Francesco; Hildebrand, Frank; Maffulli, Nicola. - In: SCIENTIFIC REPORTS. - ISSN 2045-2322. - 12:1(2022), pp. 1-9. [10.1038/s41598-022-07976-w]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Migliorini_Single-versus-double-bundle_2022.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.39 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.39 MB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1695148
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact