Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 8, pp 2640–2645 | Cite as

Multiple looping technique for tibial fixation in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using free tendon Achilles allograft

  • Jung Ho Noh
  • Kyoung Ho Yoon
  • Hee Soo Kyung
  • Young Hak RohEmail author
  • Tae Seok Kang
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

This study was conducted to evaluate case series outcomes of a new tibial fixation technique using a free tendon graft during posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction which is less affected by tibial metaphysis bone density.

Methods

Thirty-two subjects underwent single-bundle PCL reconstruction using a free tendon Achilles allograft. The graft was looped to be double stranded. The free ends of the graft were fixed to the femoral side using suture washer, and the looped end was fixed to the tibial side using the multiple looping technique. Range of motion of the knee and side-to-side difference were assessed at the last follow-up. The Lysholm Knee score was evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The Tegner Activity Scale score was evaluated before injury and at the last follow-up.

Results

Twenty-eight subjects were followed up for at least 18 months. Mean follow-up was 27.7 ± 4.8 months. All subjects showed normal range of motion at the last follow-up. The mean side-to-side difference was 10.4 ± 2.8 mm preoperatively and 2.3 ± 1.8 mm at the last follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean Lysholm Knee score was 58 ± 9 preoperatively and 91 ± 5 at the last follow-up (p < 0.001). The median Tegner Activity Scale score was 7 (range 5–9) before injury and 6 (range 4–8) at the last follow-up (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The multiple looping technique for tibial fixation resulted in satisfactory outcomes from single-bundle PCL reconstruction without any significant complications.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic case series, Level IV.

Keywords

Knee Posterior Cruciate Ligament Multiple looping 

Supplementary material

Video Clip 1

Demonstration of creating the multiple loop between the Ligament Washer and a 17-mm Suture Washer in the tibial tunnel after inserting the tibial end of the graft into the tunnel. Each No. 2 Ethibond (green color) sling suture string is passed through each hole of a 17-mm Suture Washer, and both ends of the sling suture and one end of the No. 2 Fiberwire (white color) are tied together. Then, the closed loop of No. 2 Ethibond, which is tethered with No. 2 Fiberwire, is looped over the Ligament Washer in the tibial tunnel and the 17-mm Suture Washer on the anterior aperture of the tibial tunnel. The closed loop of the No. 2 Ethibond was circled five times over the Ligament Washer and 17-mm Suture Washer while holding the free end of the tethering No. 2 Fiberwire using hemostat to prevent entanglement in the tibial tunnel. Then, five winding looping suture was made over the Ligament Washer and 17-mm Suture Washer with a No. 2 Fiberwire. The tie is cut and the No. 2 Ethibond is removed (MOV 86956 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn JH, Yoo JC, Wang JH (2005) Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: double-loop hamstring tendon autograft versus Achilles tendon allograft–clinical results of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 21(8):965–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brand JC Jr, Pienkowski D, Steenlage E, Hamilton D, Johnson DL, Caborn DN (2000) Interference screw fixation strength of a quadrupled hamstring tendon graft is directly related to bone mineral density and insertion torque. Am J Sports Med 28(5):705–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown GA, Pena F, Grontvedt T, Labadie D, Engebretsen L (1996) Fixation strength of interference screw fixation in bovine, young human, and elderly human cadaver knees: influence of insertion torque, tunnel-bone block gap, and interference. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 3(4):238–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christel P (2003) Basic principles for surgical reconstruction of the PCL in chronic posterior knee instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11(5):289–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dennis MG, Fox JA, Alford JW, Hayden JK, Bach BR Jr (2004) Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: current trends. J Knee Surg 17(3):133–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gill TJ, DeFrate LE, Wang C, Carey CT, Zayontz S, Zarins B, Li G (2004) The effect of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on patellofemoral contact pressures in the knee joint under simulated muscle loads. Am J Sports Med 32(1):109–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grassmayr MJ, Parker DA, Coolican MR, Vanwanseele B (2008) Posterior cruciate ligament deficiency: biomechanical and biological consequences and the outcomes of conservative treatment: a systematic review. J Sci Med Sport 11(5):433–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim YM, Lee CA, Matava MJ (2011) Clinical results of arthroscopic single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 39(2):425–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumagai M, Mizuno Y, Mattessich SM, Elias JJ, Cosgarea AJ, Chao EY (2002) Posterior cruciate ligament rupture alters in vitro knee kinematics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 395:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kwon JH, Han JH, Jo DY, Park HJ, Lee SY, Bhandare N, Suh DW, Nha KW (2014) Tunnel volume enlargement after posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of achilles allograft with mixed autograft/allograft—a prospective computed tomography study. Arthroscopy 30(3):326–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee SH, Jung YB, Lee HJ, Jung HJ, Kim SH (2013) Remnant preservation is helpful to obtain good clinical results in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of clinical results of three techniques. Clin Orthop Surg 5(4):278–286CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee YS, Nam SW, Hwang CH, Lee BK (2012) Computed tomography based evaluation of the bone mineral density around the fixation area during knee ligament reconstructions: clinical relevance in the choice of fixation method. Knee 19(6):793–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee YS, Wang JH, Bae JH, Lim HC, Park JH, Ahn JH, Bae TS, Lim BO (2009) Biomechanical evaluation of cross-pin versus interference screw tibial fixation using a soft-tissue graft during transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 25(9):989–995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacDonald P, Miniaci A, Fowler P, Marks P, Finlay B (1996) A biomechanical analysis of joint contact forces in the posterior cruciate deficient knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 3(4):252–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mariani PP, Margheritini F, Bellelli A (2005) Bone mineral density of the proximal metaphysis of tibia: clinical relevance in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13(4):263–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Markolf KL, Jackson SR, McAllister DR (2010) Single- versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: effects of femoral tunnel separation. Am J Sports Med 38(6):1141–1146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morrison JB (1969) Function of the knee joint in various activities. Biomed Eng 4(12):573–580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morrison JB (1970) The mechanics of the knee joint in relation to normal walking. J Biomech 3(1):51–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norbakhsh ST, Zafarani Z, Najafi A, Aslani H (2014) Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by using hamstring tendon autograft and transosseous screw fixation: minimal 3 years follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(12):1723–1730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pierce CM, O’Brien L, Griffin LW, Laprade RF (2013) Posterior cruciate ligament tears: functional and postoperative rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(5):1071–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steenlage E, Brand JC Jr, Johnson DL, Caborn DN (2002) Correlation of bone tunnel diameter with quadrupled hamstring graft fixation strength using a biodegradable interference screw. Arthroscopy 18(8):901–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tsuji T, Kitano K, Yamano Y, Sato T, Koike T (2001) Distribution of bone mineral density in the proximal tibia in mid-teens. J Bone Miner Metab 19(5):324–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whiddon DR, Zehms CT, Miller MD, Quinby JS, Montgomery SL, Sekiya JK (2008) Double compared with single-bundle open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a cadaver model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(9):1820–1829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang JH, Yoon JR, Jeong HI, Hwang DH, Woo SJ, Kwon JH, Nha KW (2012) Second-look arthroscopic assessment of arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of mixed graft versus achilles tendon allograft. Am J Sports Med 40(9):2052–2060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoon KH, Bae DK, Song SJ, Lim CT (2005) Arthroscopic double-bundle augmentation of posterior cruciate ligament using split Achilles allograft. Arthroscopy 21(12):1436–1442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jung Ho Noh
    • 1
  • Kyoung Ho Yoon
    • 2
  • Hee Soo Kyung
    • 3
  • Young Hak Roh
    • 4
    Email author
  • Tae Seok Kang
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineKangwon National UniversityChuncheon-siSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKyunghee University School of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKyungpook National University HospitalDaeguSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryGil Medical Center, Gachon University School of MedicineInchonKorea
  5. 5.Department of Family MedicineDaerim St. Mary’s HospitalSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations