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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine 2018-06, Vol.11 (2), p.316-319
Hauptverfasser: Vellios, Evan E., Jones, Kristofer J., McAllister, David R.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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