ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025
A flat posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores native knee kinematics, comparable to a double-bundle reconstruction-A biomechanical robotic investigation.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A flat posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores native knee kinematics, comparable to a double-bundle reconstruction-A biomechanical robotic investigation.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- The central fibre areas in the tibial footprint of the posterior cruciate ligament show the highest contribution to restriction of a posterior drawer force-A biomechanical robotic investigation.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo biomechanically evaluate a flat posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction utilizing rectangular femoral bone tunnels.
methodsEight fresh-frozen human knee specimens were tested in a six-degrees-of-freedom robotic test setup. In each testing step, a force-controlled test protocol was performed, including 89 N posterior tibial translation (PTT) in neutral, internal and external rotation, from 0 to 90° of flexion. After determining the native knee kinematics, the PCL was cut. Subsequently, a flat PCL reconstruction (PCLR) with a rectangular bone tunnel was performed, utilizing a quadriceps tendon autograft with a patellar bone block. After filling the bone tunnel, a single-bundle PCLR without and with femoral interference screw fixation, as well as a double-bundle reconstruction, was performed. Statistical analysis was performed using mixed linear models.
resultsCutting of the PCL led to significant (p ≤ .05) increases in PTT, from 0 to 90° of flexion, up to 10.7 mm, in comparison to the native state. After flat reconstruction and double-bundle reconstruction, no significant difference was found between the native and reconstructed state (p ≥ .05). The single-bundle PCLR without interference screw showed significantly increased PTT in comparison to the native state in 30° (mean difference [MD] 3.3 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 - 5.2 mm; p < .001), 60° (MD 4.4 mm; 95% CI 2.5-6.4 mm; p < .001) and 90° of flexion (MD 4.0 mm; 95% CI 2.1-6.0 mm; p < .001). The single-bundle PCLR with additional interference screw showed significantly increased PTT in comparison to the native state only in 30° (MD 1.9 mm; 95% CI 0.05-3.8 mm; p = .01).
conclusionBoth a flat and a double-bundle PCLR were able to restore the native knee kinematics in all tested flexion angles. A single-bundle reconstruction was not able to fully restore native kinematics, with only small residual anteroposterior instability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.