Objective To summarize research progress on enhanced recovery after posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction, clarify the core contradictions, effective intervention methods, and evaluation shortcomings in current clinical practice, and provide theoretical support for optimizing clinical rehabilitation strategies. Methods Relevant domestic and international literature in recent years was systematically searched. The key technologies and challenges for enhanced recovery after PCL reconstruction were analyzed from three aspects: the core issues of enhanced recovery after PCL reconstruction, treatment strategies, and the post-reconstruction effectiveness evaluation system. Results Enhanced recovery after PCL reconstruction mainly faces two core problems. First, there is a balance dilemma between graft tendon protection and knee joint function recovery: the tensile capacity of the graft tendon is weak in the early postoperative period, so excessive weight-bearing easily leads to relaxation, while overly conservative immobilization causes muscle atrophy and joint adhesion. Second, the return-to-sport rate is significantly affected by injury type and treatment method: patients with combined multiple ligament or meniscus injuries have a much lower return-to-sport rate than those with isolated PCL injury, and the risk of return-to-sport failure is higher. Current research mainly promotes rehabilitation from two aspects: physical therapy and surgical technology. Physical therapy runs through the perioperative period: preoperatively, muscle strength training, swelling control, and maintenance of joint range of motion are used to optimize surgical conditions; postoperatively, phased intervention is implemented. Surgical technology focuses on minimally invasive and anatomical approaches: arthroscopic surgery reduces injury, double-bundle reconstruction and internal tension-relief technology improve stability, and modified tunnel positioning and special surgical methods avoid the risk of “Killer Turn”. Postoperative functional evaluation adopts multi-dimensional indicators: subjective evaluation relies on scales such as Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC); objective evaluation assesses stability through Telos stress test and posterior drawer test; imaging evaluation takes MRI as the core; psychological evaluation is assisted by the Tampa scale of kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11). However, there are obvious shortcomings, such as the lack of PCL-specific evaluation tools. Conclusion Enhanced recovery after PCL reconstruction requires the integration of precise surgery, individualized rehabilitation, and comprehensive subjective and objective evaluation. In the future, biomaterials and digital technologies should be integrated to optimize the full-cycle management of PCL reconstruction, thereby improving functional recovery and the effect of return to sports.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction with remnant preservation and autogenous quadrupled hamstring tendons under arthroscopy. Methods Between October 2007 and August 2012, 32 patients with PCL rupture were treated and followed up for more than 1 year. There were 24 males and 8 females, aged 20-53 years (mean, 35.6 years). The causes of injury included traffic accident injury in 21 cases, sports injury in 8 cases, and falling injury from height in 3 cases. The disease duration ranged 1 week to 2 years (median, 6.3 weeks). Nine patients had simple PCL rupture, 23 patients complicated by ligament injury, including 10 cases of anterior cruciate ligament rupture, 11 cases of posterolateral corner injury, and 2 cases of posteromedial corner injury. Preoperative Lysholm score was 53.8 ± 7.1. According to the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) rating criteria, 10 cases were classified as grade C and 22 cases as grade D. PCL was reconstructed with autogenous quadrupled hamstring tendons, the tendons were fixed with EndoButton at the femoral side and with interference screw at the tibial side; floats of stump were cleaned up, and the structural stability and continuity ligament remnants were preserved. Results Primary healing was obtained in all incisions; no early complication occurred after operation. Thirty-two patients were followed up 23.4 months on average (range, 12-36 months). All patients had no symptom of knee instability; the results of tibia sags sign, posterior drawer test, and Lachman test were negative. At last follow-up, the knee range of motion (ROM) returned to normal in all cases. The Lysholm score was 92.3 ± 2.0, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative score (t= — 34.32, P=0.00). According to the IKDC rating criteria, 26 cases were classified as grade A and 6 cases as grade B at last follow-up, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative grade (Z= — 5.57, P=0.00). Conclusion Arthroscopic single-bundle reconstruction of PCL with remnant preservation and quadrupled hamstring tendons has advantages of minimal trauma, simple operation, and good knee function recovery.
Objective To investigate whether the outlet of the femoral tunnel will cause iatrogenic injury to the medial collateral ligament (MCL) during posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) and estimate the safe angle of femoral tunnel placement. MethodsThirteen formaldehyde-soaked human knee joint specimens were used, 8 from men and 5 from women; the donors’ age ranged from 49 to 71 years, with an average of 61 years. First, the medial part of the femur was carefully dissected to clearly expose the region of the MCL course and attachment on the femoral medial aspect and to outline the anterior margin of the region with a marked line. The marked line divided the medial femoral condyle into an area with an MCL course and a bare bone area which is regarded relatively safe for no MCL course. Then, the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was cut to identify the femoral attachment of the PCL. After the knee joint was fixed at a 120° flexion angle, the process of femoral tunnel preparation for the PCL single-bundle reconstruction was simulated. The inside-out technique was used to drill the femoral tunnel from the PCL femoral footprint inside the knee joint with an orientation to exit the medial condyle of the femur, and the combination angle of the two planes, the axial plane and the coronal plane, was adapted to the process of drilling femoral tunnels at different orientations. The following 15 angle combinations were used in the study: 0°/30°, 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/30°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, 30°/30°, 30°/45°, 30°/60°, 45°/30°, 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, 60°/60° (axial/coronal). The positional relationship between the femoral tunnel outlet on the femoral medial condyle and the marked line was used to verify whether the tunnel drilling angle was a risk factor for MCL injury or not, and whether the shortest distance between the femoral exit center and the marked line was affected by the various angle combinations. Furthermore, the safe orientation of the femoral tunnel placement would estimated. ResultsWhen creating the femoral tunnel for PCLR, there was a risk of damage to the MCL caused by the tunnel outlet, and the incidence was from 0 to 100%; when the drilling angle of the axial plane was 0° and 15°, the incidence of MCL damage was from 69.23% to 100%. There was a significant difference in the incidence of MCL damage among femoral tunnels of 15 angle combinations (χ2=148.195, P<0.001). By comparison between groups, it was found that when drilling femoral tunnels at 5 combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal), the shortest distances between the tunnel exit and the marked line were significantly different than 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, and 30°/30° (axial/coronal) (P<0.05). Additionally, after comparing the median of the shortest distance with other groups, the outlets generated by these 5 angles were farther from the marked line and the posterior MCL. ConclusionThe creation of the femoral tunnel in PCLR can cause iatrogenic MCL injury, and the risk is affected by the tunnel angle. To reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury, angle combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal) are recommended for preparing the femoral tunnel in PCLR.
ObjectiveTo study the results of high tibia osteotomy (HTO) combined with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction for osteoarthritis (OA) of the medial compartment with PCL injury. MethodsBetween March 2008 and June 2014, 11 patients with OA of the medial compartment and PCL injury underwent HTO combined with PCL reconstruction. There were 5 males and 6 females, aged 43-55 years (mean, 50.3 years). All patients had a trauma history, and the duration of injury was 3-5 years (mean, 3.7 years). At preoperation, Hospital for special surgery (HSS) score was 54.73±8.60, Lysholm score was 56.91±4.51, KT-1000 test was (5.71±1.13) mm, and knee range of motion (ROM) was (125.21±4.77)°. The preoperative femoral tibia angle (FTA) and posterior slope angle (PSA) of the tibia plateau were (184.82±2.40)° and (7.18±1.17)° on the X-ray film. ResultsIncisional fat liquefaction occurred in 1 case, and wound healed after dressing change; primary healing of wound was obtained in the other cases. All 11 cases were followed up 12-28 months (mean, 17 months). Bone union was observed at osteotomy site within 6 months, without delayed union or nonunion. After operation, genu varus deformity was corrected with different degrees; the stability of knees was improved in all patients; and the pain of medial knee was released significantly. At 12 months after operation, the FTA was significantly reduced to (176.64±1.96)°; at last follow-up, the HSS score was significantly increased to 88.27±4.76, KT- 1000 test was significantly reduced to (3.18±0.87) mm, and Lyholm score was significantly increased to 86.45±2.34, all showing significant differences when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the knee ROM was (124.63±2.98)° and the PSA was (7.91±1.30)°, showing no significant difference when compared with preoperative ones (P>0.05). ConclusionThe PSA will not be changed when a combination of HTO and PCL reconstruction is used to treat OA of the medial compartment with PCL injury if the right osteotomy site and reasonable bone graft are selected. The short-term effectiveness is good because of good recovery of the lower extremity force line and knee stability, but the long-term effectiveness remains to be further followed up.
Objective To summarize the research progress on knee laxity of biomechanics and prevention and treatment after posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. MethodsThe domestic and international literature on the prevention and treatment of knee laxity after PCL reconstruction in recent years was extensively reviewed and analyzed. Results Different degrees of knee laxity often occur after PCL reconstruction, which can lead to poor prognosis in patients. The causes are associated with a variety of factors, including abnormal graft remodeling (such as differences in healing time and biomechanics among different types of grafts), tunnel position deviation (such as graft wear caused by the “killer turn” effect), and mechanical factors in postoperative rehabilitation (such as improper early weight-bearing and range of motion). These factors may promote graft elongation, increase early posterior tibial translation, and thereby induce knee laxity. ConclusionWhile PCL reconstruction improves knee stability, it is crucial to focus on and prevent postoperative knee laxity. However, current surgical methods are limited by factors such as graft characteristics, surgical technique flaws, and rehabilitation protocols, and thus can not fully correct the issue of abnormal postoperative laxity. Surgical techniques and treatment strategies still need further improvement and optimization to enhance patients’ postoperative outcomes and quality of life.
Objective To compare the intraoperative effects of computer navigation-assisted versus simple arthroscopic reconstruction of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial tunnel. Methods The clinical data of 73 patients with PCL tears who were admitted between June 2021 and June 2022 and met the selection criteria were retrospectively analysed, of whom 34 cases underwent PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction with navigation-assisted arthroscopy (navigation group) and 39 cases underwent PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction with arthroscopy alone (control group). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups, including gender, age, body mass index, side of injury, time from injury to surgery, preoperative posterior drawer test, knee range of motion (ROM), Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score between the two groups (P>0.05). The perioperative indicators (operation time and number of guide wire drillings) were recorded and compared between the two groups. The angle between the graft and the tibial tunnel and the exit positions of the tibial tunnel in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes respectively were measured on MRI at 1 day after operation. The knee ROM, Tegner score, Lysholm score, and IKDC score were evaluated before operation and at last follow-up. Results The operation time in the navigation group was shorter than that in the control group, and the number of intraoperative guide wire drillings was less than that in the control group, the differences were significant (P<0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-17 months, with an average of 12.8 months. There was no perioperative complications such as vascular and nerve damage, deep venous thrombosis and infection of lower extremity. During the follow-up, there was no re-injuries in either group and no revision was required. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the exit positions of the tibial tunnel in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes between the two groups (P>0.05), but the angle between the graft and the tibial tunnel was significantly greater in the navigation group than in the control group (P<0.05). At last follow-up, 30, 3, 1 and 0 cases were rated as negative, 1+, 2+, and 3+ of posterior drawer test in the navigation group and 33, 5, 1, and 0 cases in the control group, respectively, which significantly improved when compared with the preoperative values (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, ROM, Tegner score, Lysholm score, and IKDC score of the knee joint significantly improved in both groups when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the difference in preoperative and postoperative indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionComputer-navigated arthroscopic PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction can quickly and accurately prepare tunnels with good location and orientation, with postoperative functional scores comparable to arthroscopic PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction alone.