AhnJHYangHSJeongWKKohKH. Arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with preservation of posterior cruciate ligament fibers. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:194-204.
2.
ApsingiSNguyenTBullAMUnwinADeehanDJAmisAA. Control of laxity in knees with combined posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner deficiency: comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with modified Larson posterolateral corner reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:487-494.
3.
BergfeldJAGrahamSMParkerRDValdevitADKambicHE. A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:976-981.
4.
BurnsWC2ndDraganichLFPyevichMReiderB. The effect of femoral tunnel position and graft tensioning technique on posterior laxity of the posterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23:424-430.
5.
GarofaloRJollesBMMorettiBSiegristO. Double-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a tendon–patellar bone–semitendinosus tendon autograft: clinical results with a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:1331-1338.
6.
HarnerCDJanaushekMAKanamoriAYagiMVogrinTMWooSL. Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:144-151.
7.
HoueTJorgensenU. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one- vs. two-tunnel technique. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14:107-111.
8.
KimSJKimTEJoSBKungYP. Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2543-2549.
9.
KimSJJungMMoonHKKimSGChunYM. Anterolateral transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anatomical reconstruction of posterolateral corner insufficiency: comparison of single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction over a 2- to 6-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;39:481-489.
10.
KimYMLeeCAMatavaMJ. Clinical results of arthroscopic single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2010;39:425-434.
11.
MannorDAShearnJTGroodESNoyesFRLevyMS. Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro analysis of graft placement and tension. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:833-845.
12.
MarkolfKLFeeleyBTJacksonSRMcAllisterDR. Where should the femoral tunnel of a posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction be placed to best restore anteroposterior laxity and ligament forces?Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:604-611.
13.
MarkolfKLGravesBRSigwardSMJacksonSRMcAllisterDR. Effects of posterolateral reconstructions on external tibial rotation and forces in a posterior cruciate ligament graft. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2351-2358.
14.
MarkolfKLJacksonSRMcAllisterDR. Single- versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: effects of femoral tunnel separation. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:1141-1146.
15.
McAllisterDRMarkolfKLOakesDAYoungCRMcWilliamsJ. A biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay and tibial tunnel posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: graft pretension and knee laxity. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:312-317.
16.
MinBHLeeYSLeeYSJinCZSonKH. Evaluation of transtibial double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a single-sling method with a tibialis anterior allograft. Am J Sports Med. 2010;39:374-379.
17.
NoyesFRBarber-WestinSD. Posterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction, part 1. causes of surgical failure in 52 consecutive operations. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:646-654.
PetersenWLenschowSWeimannAStrobelMJRaschkeMJZantopT. Importance of femoral tunnel placement in double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: biomechanical analysis using a robotic/universal force-moment sensor testing system. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:456-463.
20.
RaceAAmisAA. PCL reconstruction. In vitro biomechanical comparison of ‘isometric’ versus single and double-bundled ‘anatomic’ grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:173-179.
21.
SekiyaJKHaemmerleMJStabileKJVogrinTMHarnerCD. Biomechanical analysis of a combined double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:360-369.
22.
ShearnJTGroodESNoyesFRLevyMS. Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how bundle tension depends on femoral placement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1262-1270.
23.
WhiddonDRZehmsCTMillerMDQuinbyJSMontgomerySLSekiyaJK. Double compared with single-bundle open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a cadaver model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1820-1829.
24.
WileyWBAskewMJMelbyA3rdNoeDA. Kinematics of the posterior cruciate ligament/posterolateral corner–injured knee after reconstruction by single- and double-bundle intra-articular grafts. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:741-748.
25.
YoonKHBaeDKSongSJChoHJLeeJH. A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers. Am J Sports Med. 2010;39:474-480.
26.
YoonKHBaeDKSongSJLimCT. Arthroscopic double-bundle augmentation of posterior cruciate ligament using split Achilles allograft. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1436-1442.
