ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Biomechanical comparison of three tibial tunnel positions for PCL reconstruction: a 3D finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [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
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
Abstract
purposeTo compare the biomechanical properties of the graft during PCL reconstruction by three-dimensional finite element analysis of the PCL trans-tibial reconstruction technique with three different tibial bony channel exit positioning points, to determine which method of positioning is better able to avoid wear and tear between the graft and bony channel, and to reduce the failure rate of the PCL reconstruction.
methodsThis is a study limited to computational simulation and based on data from a single anatomical model. Thirty-year-old male volunteers were selected. A three-dimensional knee joint model consisting of the distal femur, the proximal tibiofibula and the posterior cruciate ligament was established based on CT scanning and three-dimensional reconstruction of the left knee joint. According to the different positioning points of the tibial tunnel exit, the PCL model of tibial side PCL anatomical region center point reconstruction, the PCL model of Fanelli suggested point (i.e., 10 mm below and 5 mm lateral to the PCL anatomical point) reconstruction, and the PCL model of tibial side posterior posterior joint capsule distal anticompromise and posterior mediastinum reference positioning point (i.e., 5 mm above the posterior capsule distal retropubic, 5 mm medial to the posterior mediastinum) reconstruction were established (respectively designated as Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3). The diameter of the entire graft was set uniformly at 7 mm. With the knee flexed at 90° and the midpoint of the line connecting the medial and lateral apexes of the tibial intercondylar ridge as the reference point, a standardized backward thrust displacement of 5 mm was applied to simulate a posterior knee drawer test with all proximal femoral degrees of freedom constrained. The model overall Mises stress, tibial plateau Mises stress, PCL Mises stress, PCL contact Cpress stress, PCL contact stress and PCL contact effective area were measured.
resultsSimulated posterior drawer tests demonstrated that Model 3 exhibited a substantial reduction in PCL contact Cpress stress (22.57 MPa) compared to Model 1 (32.93 MPa) and Model 2 (29.86 MPa). Additionally, the ratio of contact force (277.48 N) to effective graft-tibial contact area (50.19 mm²), representing the contact force per unit area, was also the lowest in Model 3 compared to Model 1 (213.88 N/17.65 mm²) and Model 2 (470.77 N/63.75 mm²). These findings indicate that Model 3 significantly reduced frictional loads between the graft and tibia, highlighting its biomechanical optimization potential. Further analysis revealed that Model 3 also displayed the lowest tibial plateau Mises stress (48.80 MPa). However, its PCL tensile stress (69.71 MPa) was significantly higher than that of Model 1 (41.03 MPa) and Model 2 (40.90 MPa), suggesting that while Model 3 minimizes friction dependency, it primarily transfers loads through graft tension.
conclusionCompared with the anatomic regional center point and Fanelli point reconstruction PCL, the grafts of the soft tissue reference tibial localization reconstruction PCL method were subjected to greater tensile forces, but they had significantly lower friction with the tibia and were able to reduce contact wear with the tibia. This can enhance long-term patient outcomes. Our study offers crucial biomechanical evidence for optimizing tunnel positioning in PCL reconstruction, propelling the advancement of surgical techniques.
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.