Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament with a Ligament-advanced Reinforcement System and Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Retrospective Study.

objectiveBoth ligament-advanced reinforcement system (LARS) and hamstring tendon autograft can serve as grafts for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. However, few studies have compared the effectiveness of these two approaches. This study therefore aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic reconstruction of the PCL using either the LARS or hamstring tendon autograft.

methodsA total of 36 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed. Within this cohort, 15 patients received a reconstruction using the LARS (LARS group) and 21 using the hamstring tendon autograft (HT group).

resultsThe pre- and post-operative subjective scores and knee stability were evaluated and the patients were followed up for a period of 2 to 10.5 years (4.11±2.0 years on average). The last follow-up showed that functional scores and knee stability were significantly improved in both groups (P<0.05). Six months after operation, Lysholm scores and IKDC subjective scores were higher in the LARS group than in the HT group (P<0.05). Nonetheless, the last follow-up showed no significant differences in the functional scores or the posterior drawer test between the two groups (P>0.05). In the LARS and HT groups, 12 and 9 patients, respectively exhibited KT1000 values <3 mm, with the difference being statistically significant (P<0.05). In the HT group, the diameter of the four-strand hamstring tendon was positively correlated with height (P<0.05), which was 7.37±0.52 mm in males and 6.50±0.77 mm in females (P<0.05).

conclusionBoth LARS and hamstring tendon approaches achieved good efficacy for PCL reconstruction, but patients in the LARS group exhibited faster functional recovery and better knee stability in the long term. LARS is especially suitable for those who hope to resume activities as early as possible.