Open Tibial Inlay PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes
Purpose of Review To review the current literature on clinical outcomes following open tibial inlay posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction and provide the reader with a detailed description of the author’s preferred surgical technique. Recent Findings Despite earlier biomechanical studies...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine 2018-06, Vol.11 (2), p.316-319 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 319 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 316 |
container_title | Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Vellios, Evan E. Jones, Kristofer J. McAllister, David R. |
description | Purpose of Review
To review the current literature on clinical outcomes following open tibial inlay posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction and provide the reader with a detailed description of the author’s preferred surgical technique.
Recent Findings
Despite earlier biomechanical studies which demonstrated superiority of the PCL inlay technique when compared to transtibial techniques, recent longitudinal cohort studies have shown no significant differences in clinical or functional outcomes at 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, no significant clinical differences have been shown between graft types used and/or single- versus double-bundle reconstruction methods.
Summary
The optimal treatment for the PCL-deficient knee remains unclear. Open tibial inlay PCL reconstruction is safe, reproducible, and avoids the “killer turn” that may potentially lead to graft weakening and failure seen in transtibial reconstruction methods. No significant differences in subjective outcomes or clinical laxity have been shown between single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction methods. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12178-018-9490-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5970125</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2030931572</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-447d02455aa2161b28aad1960675836186d65a25ff8c6dd48dbb2e4b64ed9c4b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFuGyEQhlGVqE6dPkAu0R5z2ZZhgV16qBRZSRrJqqPUkXpDLGAbaw0O7FbK2xfXrpVccho0880_w_wIXQD-AhjXXxMQqJsSQ1MKKnBZfUBnICpWipo2J8d39XuEPqW0xpgDJvQjGhHBBdQcztDP2db6Yu5ap7ri3nfqpXiYTItHq4NPfRx074L_Vvwa4tLpjMytXnn3PNhCeVNMOuf_pWdDr8PGpnN0ulBdsp8PcYyebm_mkx_ldHZ3P7melppS0peU1iZvwphSBDi0pFHKgOCY16ypODTccKYIWywazY2hjWlbYmnLqTVC07Yao-973e3QbqzR1vdRdXIb3UbFFxmUk28r3q3kMvyRTNQYCMsCVweBGPJvUi83LmnbdcrbMCRJcIVFBawmGYU9qmNIKdrFcQxgufNB7n2Q2Qe580FWuefy9X7Hjv-HzwDZAymX_NJGuQ5D9Plm76j-BfKjk9c</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2030931572</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Open Tibial Inlay PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Vellios, Evan E. ; Jones, Kristofer J. ; McAllister, David R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Vellios, Evan E. ; Jones, Kristofer J. ; McAllister, David R.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose of Review
To review the current literature on clinical outcomes following open tibial inlay posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction and provide the reader with a detailed description of the author’s preferred surgical technique.
Recent Findings
Despite earlier biomechanical studies which demonstrated superiority of the PCL inlay technique when compared to transtibial techniques, recent longitudinal cohort studies have shown no significant differences in clinical or functional outcomes at 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, no significant clinical differences have been shown between graft types used and/or single- versus double-bundle reconstruction methods.
Summary
The optimal treatment for the PCL-deficient knee remains unclear. Open tibial inlay PCL reconstruction is safe, reproducible, and avoids the “killer turn” that may potentially lead to graft weakening and failure seen in transtibial reconstruction methods. No significant differences in subjective outcomes or clinical laxity have been shown between single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1935-973X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-9748</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12178-018-9490-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29691761</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Minimally Invasive Surgery ; Orthopedics ; PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia ; PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia, section editors) ; Rehabilitation Medicine ; section editors ; Sports Medicine ; Surgery ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Topical Collection on PCL Update</subject><ispartof>Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2018-06, Vol.11 (2), p.316-319</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-447d02455aa2161b28aad1960675836186d65a25ff8c6dd48dbb2e4b64ed9c4b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-447d02455aa2161b28aad1960675836186d65a25ff8c6dd48dbb2e4b64ed9c4b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5970125/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5970125/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,886,27929,27930,41493,42562,51324,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29691761$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vellios, Evan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Kristofer J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAllister, David R.</creatorcontrib><title>Open Tibial Inlay PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes</title><title>Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine</title><addtitle>Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med</addtitle><addtitle>Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med</addtitle><description>Purpose of Review
To review the current literature on clinical outcomes following open tibial inlay posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction and provide the reader with a detailed description of the author’s preferred surgical technique.
Recent Findings
Despite earlier biomechanical studies which demonstrated superiority of the PCL inlay technique when compared to transtibial techniques, recent longitudinal cohort studies have shown no significant differences in clinical or functional outcomes at 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, no significant clinical differences have been shown between graft types used and/or single- versus double-bundle reconstruction methods.
Summary
The optimal treatment for the PCL-deficient knee remains unclear. Open tibial inlay PCL reconstruction is safe, reproducible, and avoids the “killer turn” that may potentially lead to graft weakening and failure seen in transtibial reconstruction methods. No significant differences in subjective outcomes or clinical laxity have been shown between single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction methods.</description><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgery</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia</subject><subject>PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia, section editors)</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><subject>section editors</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Topical Collection on PCL Update</subject><issn>1935-973X</issn><issn>1935-9748</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kcFuGyEQhlGVqE6dPkAu0R5z2ZZhgV16qBRZSRrJqqPUkXpDLGAbaw0O7FbK2xfXrpVccho0880_w_wIXQD-AhjXXxMQqJsSQ1MKKnBZfUBnICpWipo2J8d39XuEPqW0xpgDJvQjGhHBBdQcztDP2db6Yu5ap7ri3nfqpXiYTItHq4NPfRx074L_Vvwa4tLpjMytXnn3PNhCeVNMOuf_pWdDr8PGpnN0ulBdsp8PcYyebm_mkx_ldHZ3P7melppS0peU1iZvwphSBDi0pFHKgOCY16ypODTccKYIWywazY2hjWlbYmnLqTVC07Yao-973e3QbqzR1vdRdXIb3UbFFxmUk28r3q3kMvyRTNQYCMsCVweBGPJvUi83LmnbdcrbMCRJcIVFBawmGYU9qmNIKdrFcQxgufNB7n2Q2Qe580FWuefy9X7Hjv-HzwDZAymX_NJGuQ5D9Plm76j-BfKjk9c</recordid><startdate>20180601</startdate><enddate>20180601</enddate><creator>Vellios, Evan E.</creator><creator>Jones, Kristofer J.</creator><creator>McAllister, David R.</creator><general>Springer US</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180601</creationdate><title>Open Tibial Inlay PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes</title><author>Vellios, Evan E. ; Jones, Kristofer J. ; McAllister, David R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-447d02455aa2161b28aad1960675836186d65a25ff8c6dd48dbb2e4b64ed9c4b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgery</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia</topic><topic>PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia, section editors)</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Medicine</topic><topic>section editors</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Topical Collection on PCL Update</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vellios, Evan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Kristofer J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAllister, David R.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vellios, Evan E.</au><au>Jones, Kristofer J.</au><au>McAllister, David R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Open Tibial Inlay PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine</jtitle><stitle>Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med</stitle><addtitle>Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med</addtitle><date>2018-06-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>316</spage><epage>319</epage><pages>316-319</pages><issn>1935-973X</issn><eissn>1935-9748</eissn><abstract>Purpose of Review
To review the current literature on clinical outcomes following open tibial inlay posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction and provide the reader with a detailed description of the author’s preferred surgical technique.
Recent Findings
Despite earlier biomechanical studies which demonstrated superiority of the PCL inlay technique when compared to transtibial techniques, recent longitudinal cohort studies have shown no significant differences in clinical or functional outcomes at 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, no significant clinical differences have been shown between graft types used and/or single- versus double-bundle reconstruction methods.
Summary
The optimal treatment for the PCL-deficient knee remains unclear. Open tibial inlay PCL reconstruction is safe, reproducible, and avoids the “killer turn” that may potentially lead to graft weakening and failure seen in transtibial reconstruction methods. No significant differences in subjective outcomes or clinical laxity have been shown between single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction methods.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>29691761</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12178-018-9490-3</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1935-973X |
ispartof | Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2018-06, Vol.11 (2), p.316-319 |
issn | 1935-973X 1935-9748 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5970125 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; SpringerNature Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Medicine Medicine & Public Health Minimally Invasive Surgery Orthopedics PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia PCL Update (K Jones and M Alaia, section editors) Rehabilitation Medicine section editors Sports Medicine Surgery Surgical Orthopedics Topical Collection on PCL Update |
title | Open Tibial Inlay PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T10%3A41%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Open%20Tibial%20Inlay%20PCL%20Reconstruction:%20Surgical%20Technique%20and%20Clinical%20Outcomes&rft.jtitle=Current%20reviews%20in%20musculoskeletal%20medicine&rft.au=Vellios,%20Evan%20E.&rft.date=2018-06-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=316&rft.epage=319&rft.pages=316-319&rft.issn=1935-973X&rft.eissn=1935-9748&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12178-018-9490-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2030931572%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2030931572&rft_id=info:pmid/29691761&rfr_iscdi=true |