Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40308663›Full record

ArticleVideo journal of sports medicine

Revision Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique.

Dani Mouarbes, Thomas Ripoll, Nicolas Vari, Nicolas Lunel, Vincent Marot, Etienne Cavaignac

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Video journal of sports medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dani MouarbesDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma, Pierre-Paul Riquet Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Thomas RipollDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma, Pierre-Paul Riquet Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Nicolas VariDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma, Pierre-Paul Riquet Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Nicolas LunelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma, Pierre-Paul Riquet Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Vincent MarotDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma, Pierre-Paul Riquet Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Etienne CavaignacDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma, Pierre-Paul Riquet Hospital, Toulouse, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Revision posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) is challenging, especially in existing semi-anatomic tunnels, whereas there is an increased risk of overlapping with a new positioned anatomic tunnel. Few cases were published with no consensus regarding the optimal operative technique. Indications: A 22-year-old male patient, with failed PCLR with hamstring autograft in 2020 due to improper tunnels placement, presented for pain and instability of his right knee. Physical examination revealed a positive posterior drawer and reverse Pivot-Shift test, with no varus-valgus or rotational laxity. Radiograph showed no signs of arthritis, normal tibial slope, and normal long-leg standing axis. Magnetic resonance imaging showed rupture of the PCL graft with no meniscal, chondral, or concomitant ligament injuries. Technique Description: We described a single-bundle transtibial technique with a posterior transeptal portal approach to reconstruct the PCL. We started by preparing the allograft with an internal brace augmentation and an adjustable button (Arthrex) placed on the femoral side for cortical fixation. The old semi-anatomical femoral tunnel was drilled and grafted using an allograft bone dowel (Biobank), and a new anatomic femoral tunnel was drilled inside-out. Under direct visualization via posterior transeptal portals, a new anatomic tibial tunnel was drilled posterior to the existing nonanatomic tunnel. Using a shuttle suture, the transplant was passed and fixed by an adjustable button at the femur and by two interference screws and a backup fixation using a Swive-lock anchor at the tibia (Arthrex). Results: Favorable functional and clinical outcomes with improvement of anteroposterior stability. Significant improved side-to-side differences on posterior stress radiography and improved subjective and objective clinical scores. Satisfactory outcomes with 75% of patients returned to preinjury Tegner activity scale level of function. Discussion/Conclusion: The use of the posterior transeptal portals approach protects the vital neurovascular structures and ensures proper PCL tibial tunnel placement by providing direct visualization of the tibial attachment. Allograft bone dowels facilitate PCL revision in a one-stage procedure by filling the existing semi-anatomic tunnels and allowing to drill the new anatomic tunnels without tunnel overlap. The use of the internal brace augmentation strengthens the construct to protect the graft during the revascularization and remodeling process by facilitating tissue ingrowth and incorporation. In revision surgery, backup fixation is encouraged and often essential due to the compromised bone stock. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Indexed as

allograft bone dowelschronic instabilityinternal brace augmentationrevision PCL reconstructiontranseptal portal

Identifiers

PMID40308663
PMCPMC11962269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.