Anterolateral Transtibial Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Combined With Anatomical Reconstruction of Posterolateral Corner Insufficiency Comparison of Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Over a 2- to 6-Year Follow-Up

Background: There is a paucity of clinical studies comparing single-and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction combined with a posterolateral corner reconstruction. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of single-and double-bundle transtibial PCL reconstruction combined with reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligament and popliteus tendon for posterolateral corner insufficiency. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence 3. Methods: The study population consisted of 42 patients for whom a minimum of 2 years of follow-up data were available. The authors compared the clinical outcomes of 2 surgical techniques: a single-bundle technique (23 patients) and a double-bundle technique (19 patients), each combined with reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligament and popliteus tendon for posterolateral corner insufficiency. Results: There was no significant difference between the single- and double-bundle groups in mean side-to-side difference of posterior translation as measured with Telos stress radiography (4.2 +/- 1.7 vs 3.9 +/- 1.6 mm; P = .628). Rates of residual increased laxity greater than 5 mm were 22% in the single-bundle group and 21% in the double-bundle group. Regarding posterolateral rotatory instability, there were no differences between the 2 groups in mean side-to-side difference in the dial test (5.3 degrees +/- 2.7 degrees vs 5.1 degrees +/- 2.4 degrees at 30 degrees of flexion [P = .800]; 6.7 degrees +/- 2.7 degrees vs 6.7 degrees +/- 2.4 degrees at 90 degrees of flexion [P = .917]) or in varus stress radiography (1.2 +/- 1.2 vs 1.3 +/- 1.4 mm; P = .722). The Lysholm knee scores were 85.7 +/- 7.6 in the single-bundle group and 87.7 +/- 7.3 in the double-bundle group, and there was no significant difference between them (P = .392). There was also no difference between the groups in International Knee Documentation Committee knee score (P = .969); from this, the rates of abnormal and severely abnormal were 30% in the single-bundle group and 26% in the double-bundle group. Conclusion: In this series, double-bundle PCL reconstruction combined with posterolateral corner reconstruction did not appear to have advantages over single-bundle PCL reconstruction combined with posterolateral corner reconstruction with respect to the clinical outcomes or posterior knee stability.