The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:1788-1794.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00427
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 CME 3: July, August, September 2006 (publication date October 5, 2006; expi...
Sports Test 9: Fall 2006 (publication date November 15, 2006; expiration da...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Markolf, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by McAllister, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Markolf, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by McAllister, D. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Sports
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Biomechanical Studies of Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions

Keith L. Markolf, PhD1, Brian T. Feeley, MD1, Steven R. Jackson1 and David R. McAllister, MD1

1 Biomechanics Research Section, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California at Los Angeles Rehabilitation Center, 1000 Veteran Avenue, Room 21-67, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1759. E-mail address for K.L. Markolf: kmarkolf{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Investigation performed at the Biomechanics Research Section, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

NOTE: The authors acknowledge the contributions of Daniel Martin, MS, and Samir Tejwani, MD, during the initial phases of testing.

In support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from NFL Charities. Graft tissues and knee specimens were provided by the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: Double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament has been advocated to better replicate the anatomy of the native ligament and restore normal knee biomechanics. The goal of this study was to measure knee laxities and graft forces following single and double-bundle reconstructions and to compare these values with those for the intact knee in a cadaver model.

Methods: Forces in the posterior cruciate ligament were measured as the knee was passively extended from 120° to 0° with applied tibial loading. Anterior-posterior laxities were measured as well. An anterolateral tunnel was located at the anterolateral margin of the native ligament footprint, and a posteromedial tunnel was placed at one of two locations within the footprint; one location resulted in a wide bridge separating the tunnels and the other, a narrow bridge. Testing was repeated with a single anterolateral graft tensioned to match, within ±1 mm, the laxity in the intact knee at 90° of flexion. Double-bundle reconstructions were tested with the addition of a posteromedial graft tensioned at 30° of flexion. Two levels of posteromedial graft tension (10 and 30 N) were studied in both the narrow and the wide-bridge posteromedial tunnels.

Results: Mean laxities with a single anterolateral graft were 1.1 to 2.0 mm greater than normal between 0° and 30° of flexion. With the posteromedial graft tensioned to 10 N in the wide-bridge tunnel, the mean laxity of the double grafts was not significantly different from that in the intact knee at any flexion angle. With the posteromedial graft tensioned to 10 N in the narrow-bridge tunnel, the mean laxity at 0° was 0.9 mm greater than that in the intact knee. With the posteromedial graft tensioned to 30 N, the mean laxity at 10° was 1.7 mm less than the intact-knee value in the wide-bridge tunnel and 1.3 mm less than the intact-knee value in the narrow bridge-tunnel. Increasing posteromedial graft tension from 10 to 30 N decreased the mean laxities by 0.5 to 1.1 mm between 0° and 30°. Mean graft forces following a single anterolateral reconstruction were not significantly different from the native posterior cruciate ligament forces under any mode of loading except valgus moment. With the wide-bridge tunnel, the mean forces with the posteromedial graft tensioned to 10 N were somewhat higher than the native posterior cruciate ligament forces at full extension; when the graft was tensioned to 30 N, the mean forces were substantially higher.

Conclusions: A single anterolateral graft best reproduced the normal posterior cruciate ligament force profiles, but laxities were greater than normal between 0° and 30° of knee flexion. The addition of a second, posteromedial graft reduced laxity in this flexion range but did so at the expense of higher-than-normal forces in the posteromedial graft.

Clinical Relevance: The results of this study suggest that it is reasonable to question the rationale for adding a second, posteromedial graft.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
D. R. Whiddon, C. T. Zehms, M. D. Miller, J. S. Quinby, S. L. Montgomery, and J. K. Sekiya
Double Compared with Single-Bundle Open Inlay Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in a Cadaver Model
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2008; 90(9): 1820 - 1829.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
D. C. Covey, A. A. Sapega, and R. H. Riffenburgh
The Effects of Sequential Sectioning of Defined Posterior Cruciate Ligament Fiber Regions on Translational Knee Motion
Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 2008; 36(3): 480 - 486.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
S. Apsingi, T. Nguyen, A. M. J. Bull, A. Unwin, D. J. Deehan, and A. A. Amis
Control of Laxity in Knees With Combined Posterior Cruciate Ligament and Posterolateral Corner Deficiency: Comparison of Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Combined With Modified Larson Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction
Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 2008; 36(3): 487 - 494.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
K. L. Markolf, B. R. Graves, S. M. Sigward, S. R. Jackson, and D. R. McAllister
Effects of Posterolateral Reconstructions on External Tibial Rotation and Forces in a Posterior Cruciate Ligament Graft
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2007; 89(11): 2351 - 2358.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
K. L. Markolf, B. R. Graves, S. M. Sigward, S. R. Jackson, and D. R. McAllister
How Well Do Anatomical Reconstructions of the Posterolateral Corner Restore Varus Stability to the Posterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knee?
Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2007; 35(7): 1117 - 1122.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
G. Treme, J. A. Hart, and M. D. Miller
What's New in Sports Medicine
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2007; 89(3): 686 - 696.
[Full Text] [PDF]