Comparable clinical and radiological outcomes between anatomical and high femoral tunnels in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates between anatomical and high femoral tunnels in remnant-preserving single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. METHODS: 63 patients who underwent remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the femoral tunnel position: group A (33 patients with anatomical femoral tunnel) and group H (30 patients with high femoral tunnels). The femoral tunnel was positioned at the center (group A) or upper margin (group H) of the remnant anterolateral bundle. The position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated using the grid method on three-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates were compared between the groups at the 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The position of the femoral tunnel was significantly high in group H than in group A (87.4% ± 4.2% versus 76.1% ± 3.7%, p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups in terms of the clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores), range of motion, and posterior drawer test. Radiological outcomes also showed no intergroup differences in the side-to-side differences of posterior tibial translation and osteoarthritis progression. Side-to-side difference on the Telos stress radiograph was 5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A and 5.2 ± 2.7 mm in group H (n.s.). There were four failures in group A (12.1%) and one in group H (3.3%). The differences between the groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates of the high femoral tunnels were comparable with those of the anatomical femoral tunnels at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that high femoral tunnels can be considered an alternative in remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparable Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between an Anatomic Tunnel and a Low Tibial Tunnel in Remnant-Preserving Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.