ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure leads to better restoration of posterior knee laxity in isolated and multiple ligament knee injuries than single-bundle procedure.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Elite Athletes: A Narrative Review.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure leads to better restoration of posterior knee laxity in isolated and multiple ligament knee injuries than single-bundle procedure.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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine whether the knee stability is better with single-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. The hypothesis was that DB PCL reconstruction in isolated and multiple ligament knee injuries may be significantly better in the posterior laxity than SB procedure. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted with 51 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction. Seventeen cases required isolated PCL reconstruction, and the others had the following additional ligament reconstruction; 25 cases required anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, 11 cases required posteromedial corner reconstruction, and eight cases required posterolateral corner reconstruction. All patients were divided into two groups: In Group S, 20 patients underwent SB PCL reconstruction. In Group D, 31 patients underwent DB PCL reconstruction. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 2 years or more after surgery. The paired Student Results: The postoperative anterior-posterior (AP) translation at 20° and 70° and the relative femur-tibia position in the anterior and posterior stress radiographs at 90° significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. The postoperative side-to-side differences in AP translation at 20° and 70° showed no significant difference between the groups. The relative femur-tibia position in the posterior stress radiographs at 90° was significantly less ( Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the Lysholm score, IKDC evaluation, and KOOS, Tegner scale between both groups although there was significantly better posterior stability in 90° flexion with DB reconstruction. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.