ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Clinical efficacy of arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a retrospective study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Elite Athletes: A Narrative Review.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Complications Related to Arthroscopic Isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 4162 Patients.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- [Research progress on enhanced recovery after posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Review
- Single-bundle vs. double-bundle isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study on time to work and functional outcomes.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the functional and clinical outcomes of knee joints in patients over a 10-year period following posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction with single-bundle versus double-bundle.
methodsPatients who underwent PCL reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the surgical approach, they were divided into the single-bundle reconstruction group and the double-bundle reconstruction group. Preoperative and postoperative Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKCD) score, and Tegner activity score were evaluated, and the stability of the joints was assessed using KT-2000 arthrometer. Radiographs were taken at the final follow-up to evaluate the progression of osteoarthritis.
resultsA total of 61 patients were included in the analysis: 26 in the double-bundle group and 35 in the single-bundle group. Baseline data were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in preoperative Lysholm, IKDC score, and Tegner activity score. Postoperatively, these scores were significantly higher at two and ten years follow-up (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in side-to-side differences (SSD) at 30° and 90° of knee flexion preoperatively between the groups (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, SSD decreased significantly at the two year and ten year follow-up (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). For osteoarthritis progression, there were four cases of Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ II in the single-bundle group and three cases in the double-bundle group, with no significant difference in the progression of osteoarthritis between the groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionBoth single-bundle and double-bundle reconstructions for PCL result in good joint stability and mobility, with similar progression of osteoarthritis in long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39482379What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.