ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Single-bundle vs. double-bundle isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study on time to work and functional outcomes.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe optimal surgical technique for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction remains debated, especially among patients under workers' compensation. Biomechanical studies suggest double-bundle (DB) reconstruction provides superior stability compared to single-bundle (SB), but clinical evidence is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare return-to-work time, functional outcomes, and complication rates between SB and DB PCL reconstruction (PCL-R) in patients with work-related knee injuries.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, non-concurrent cohort study of patients with isolated PCL injuries covered by workers' compensation who underwent SB or DB PCL-R between 2019 and 2022. Time to return to work, functional outcomes (KOOS, Lysholm), and postoperative complications were analysed and compared between groups.
resultsA total of 22 patients were included (14 in SB, 8 in DB). The median return-to-work time was 176.5 days, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.516). No statistically significant differences were found in complication rates or functional scores (KOOS and Lysholm) between the 2 techniques. The small sample size (n = 22) reflects the low incidence of isolated PCL injuries.
conclusionIn workers with isolated PCL injuries, SB and DB PCL-R yielded comparable return-to-work times and functional outcomes. Although DB reconstruction may offer biomechanical advantages, these did not translate into statistically significant clinical differences in this cohort. These findings support the use of either technique in occupational settings, where timely functional recovery is crucial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective study of non-concurrent cohorts (Level III).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40794205What 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.