The optimal treatment of posterior cruciate ligament ruptures remains controversial despite numerous recent basic science advances on the topic. The current literature on the anatomy, biomechanics, and clinical outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is reviewed. Recent studies have quantified the anatomic location and biomechanical contribution of each of the 2 posterior cruciate ligament bundles on tunnel placement and knee kinematics during reconstruction. Additional laboratory and cadaveric studies have suggested double-bundle reconstructions of the posterior cruciate ligament may better restore normal knee kinematics than single-bundle reconstructions although clinical outcomes have not revealed such a difference. Tibial inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (either open or arthroscopic) are preferred by many authors to avoid the “killer turn” and graft laxity with cyclic loading. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves subjective patient outcomes and return to sport although stability and knee kinematics may not return to normal.
AhmadCSCohenZALevineWNGardnerTRAteshianGAMowVC. Codominance of the individual posterior cruciate ligament bundles: an analysis of bundle lengths and orientation. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):221-225.
2.
AhnJHYangHSJeongWKKohKH. Arthroscopic transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with preservation of posterior cruciate ligament fibers: clinical results of minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(2):194-204.
3.
AhnJHYooJCWangJH. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: double-loop hamstring tendon autograft versus Achilles tendon allograft–clinical results of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):965-969.
4.
AmisAAGupteCMBullAMEdwardsA. Anatomy of the posterior cruciate ligament and the meniscofemoral ligaments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(3):257-263.
5.
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(3):487-494.
6.
BergfeldJAGrahamSMParkerRDValdevitADKambicHE. A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(7):976-981.
7.
BergfeldJAMcAllisterDRParkerRDValdevitADKambicHE. A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(2):129-136.
8.
CampbellRBTorrieAHeckerASekiyaJK. Comparison of tibial graft fixation between simulated arthroscopic and open inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1731-1738.
9.
CarsonEWDengXHAllenAWickiewiczTWarrenRF. Evaluation of in situ graft forces of a 2-bundle tibial inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at various flexion angles. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(5):488-495.
10.
ChenBGaoS. Double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a non-hardware suspension fixation technique and 8 strands of autogenous hamstring tendons. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(7):777-782.
11.
ChhabraAKlineAJHarnerCD. Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: scientific rationale and surgical technique. Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:497-507.
12.
CooperDEStewartD. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using single-bundle patella tendon graft with tibial inlay fixation: 2- to 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(2):346-360.
13.
DeFrateLEGillTJLiG. In vivo function of the posterior cruciate ligament during weightbearing knee flexion. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(8):1923-1928.
14.
EdwardsABullAMAmisAA. The attachments of the fiber bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament: an anatomic study. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(3):284-290.
15.
ForsytheBHarnerCMartinsCAShenWLopesOVJrFuFH. Topography of the femoral attachment of the posterior cruciate ligament: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91Suppl 2Pt 1:89-100.
16.
FowlerPJMessiehSS. Isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15(6):553-557.
17.
GiffinJRStabileKJZantopTVogrinTMWooSLHarnerCD. Importance of tibial slope for stability of the posterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(9):1443-1449.
18.
GiffinJRVogrinTMZantopTWooSLHarnerCD. Effects of increasing tibial slope on the biomechanics of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(2):376-382.
19.
GillTJVan de VeldeSKWingDWOhLSHosseiniALiG. Tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics after reconstruction of an isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury: in vivo analysis during lunge. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2377-2385.
20.
GirgisFGMarshallJLMonajemA. The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint: anatomical, functional and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;106:216-231.
21.
GuptaALattermannCBusamMRiffABachBRJrWangVM. Biomechanical evaluation of bioabsorbable versus metallic screws for posterior cruciate ligament inlay graft fixation: a comparative study. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):748-753.
22.
HammoudSReinhardtKRMarxRG. Outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament treatment: a review of the evidence. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2010;18(4):280-291.
23.
HarnerCDBaekGHVogrinTMCarlinGJKashiwaguchiSWooSL. Quantitative analysis of human cruciate ligament insertions. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(7):741-749.
24.
HarnerCDJanaushekMAKanamoriAYagiMVogrinTMWooSL. Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(2):144-151.
25.
HarnerCDVogrinTMHoherJMaCBWooSL. Biomechanical analysis of a posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: deficiency of the posterolateral structures as a cause of graft failure. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(1):32-39.
26.
HermansSCortenKBellemansJ. Long-term results of isolated anterolateral bundle reconstructions of the posterior cruciate ligament: a 6- to 12-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(8):1499-1507.
27.
HiragaYIshibashiYTsudaETohHT. Biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques using cyclic loading tests. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(1):13-19.
28.
HoueTJorgensenU. Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: one- vs. two-tunnel technique. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14(2):107-111.
29.
JackmanTLaPradeRFPontinenTLenderPA. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the kneeling technique of stress radiography for the evaluation of posterior knee laxity. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(8):1571-1576.
30.
JacksonWFvan der TempelWMSalmonLJWilliamsHAPinczewskiLA. Endoscopically-assisted single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results at minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(10):1328-1333.
31.
KimSJKimTEJoSBKungYP. Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(11):2543-2549.
32.
KimYMLeeCAMatavaMJ. Clinical results of arthroscopic single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(2):425-434.
33.
KitamuraNYasudaKYamanakaMTohyamaH. Biomechanical comparisons of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures with load-controlled and displacement-controlled cyclic tests. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(6):907-914.
34.
KohenRBSekiyaJK. Single-bundle versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(12):1470-1477.
35.
KozanekMFuECVan de VeldeSKGillTJLiG. Posterolateral structures of the knee in posterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(3):534-541.
36.
LaPradeRFMorganPMWentorfFAJohansenSEngebretsenL. The anatomy of the posterior aspect of the knee: an anatomic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):758-764.
37.
LimHCBaeJHWangJH. The biomechanical performance of bone block and soft-tissue posterior cruciate ligament graft fixation with interference screw and cross-pin techniques. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(3):250-256.
38.
LoganMWilliamsALavelleJGedroycWFreemanM. The effect of posterior cruciate ligament deficiency on knee kinematics. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(8):1915-1922.
39.
LopesOVJrFerrettiMShenWEkdahlMSmolinskiPFuFH. Topography of the femoral attachment of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(2):249-255.
40.
LorenzSElserFBruckerPUObstTImhoffAB. Radiological evaluation of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundle insertion sites of the posterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(6):683-690.
41.
MacGillivrayJDSteinBEParkMAllenAAWickiewiczTLWarrenRF. Comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(3):320-328.
MannorDAShearnJTGroodESNoyesFRLevyMS. Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro analysis of graft placement and tension. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:833-845.
MargheritiniFMauroCSRihnJAStabileKJWooSLHarnerCD. Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: analysis of knee kinematics and graft in situ forces. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(3):587-593.
46.
MargheritiniFRihnJAMauroCSStabileKJWooSLHarnerCD. Biomechanics of initial tibial fixation in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(10):1164-1171.
47.
MarkolfKDaviesMZoricBMcAllisterD. Effects of bone block position and orientation within the tibial tunnel for posterior cruciate ligament graft reconstructions: a cyclic loading study of bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(5):673-679.
48.
MarkolfKLFeeleyBTJacksonSRMcAllisterDR. Biomechanical studies of double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(8):1788-1794.
49.
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(4):604-611.
50.
MarkolfKLGravesBRSigwardSMJacksonSRMcAllisterDR. Effects of posterolateral reconstructions on external tibial rotation and forces in a posterior cruciate ligament graft. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(11):2351-2358.
51.
MarkolfKLGravesBRSigwardSMJacksonSRMcAllisterDR. How well do anatomical reconstructions of the posterolateral corner restore varus stability to the posterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee?Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(7):1117-1122.
52.
MarkolfKLJacksonSRMcAllisterDR. Single-versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: effects of femoral tunnel separation. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(6):1141-1146.
53.
MarkolfKLZemanovicJRMcAllisterDR. Cyclic loading of posterior cruciate ligament replacements fixed with tibial tunnel and tibial inlay methods. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(4):518-524.
54.
MatavaMJEllisEGruberB. Surgical treatment of posterior cruciate ligament tears: an evolving technique. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(7):435-446.
55.
MauroCSSekiyaJKStabileKJHaemmerleMJHarnerCD. Double-bundle PCL and posterolateral corner reconstruction components are codominant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(9):2247-2254.
56.
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(3):312-317.
57.
McAllisterDRMillerMDSekiyaJKWojtysEM. Posterior cruciate ligament biomechanics and options for surgical treatment. Instr Course Lect. 2009;58:377-388.
58.
MejiaEANoyesFRGroodES. Posterior cruciate ligament femoral insertion site characteristics: importance for reconstructive procedures. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(5):643-651.
59.
MoormanCT3rdMurphy ZaneMSBansaiS. Tibial insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament: a sagittal plane analysis using gross, histologic, and radiographic methods. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(3):269-275.
60.
MorganCDKalmanVRGrawlDM. The anatomic origin of the posterior cruciate ligament: where is it?–reference landmarks for PCL reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(3):325-331.
61.
NagasakiSOhkoshiYYamamotoKEbataWImabuchiRNishiikeJ. The incidence and cross-sectional area of the meniscofemoral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(8):1345-1350.
62.
NoyesFRBarber-WestinS. Posterior cruciate ligament replacement with a two-strand quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft and a tibial inlay technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(6):1241-1252.
63.
OakesDAMarkolfKLMcWilliamsJYoungCRMcAllisterDR. Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay and tibial tunnel techniques for reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: analysis of graft forces. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(6):938-944.
64.
OakesDAMarkolfKLMcWilliamsJYoungCRMcAllisterDR. The effect of femoral tunnel position on graft forces during inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(5):667-672.
65.
PapannagariRDeFrateLENhaKW. Function of posterior cruciate ligament bundles during in vivo knee flexion. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(9):1507-1512.
66.
ParolieJMBergfeldJA. Long-term results of nonoperative treatment of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in the athlete. Am J Sports Med. 1986;14(1):35-38.
67.
PatelDVAllenAAWarrenRFWickiewiczTLSimonianPT. The nonoperative treatment of acute, isolated (partial or complete) posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees: an intermediate-term follow-up study. HSS J. 2007;3(2):137-146.
68.
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(3):456-463.
69.
PetersenWLoerchSSchanzSRaschkeMZantopT. The role of the posterior oblique ligament in controlling posterior tibial translation in the posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(3):495-501.
70.
RaceAAmisAA. PCL reconstruction. In vitro biomechanical comparison of ‘isometric’ versus single and double-bundled ‘anatomic’ grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(1):173-179.
71.
Ruberte ThieleRACampbellRBAmendolaASekiyaJK. Biomechanical comparison of figure-of-8 versus cylindrical tibial inlay constructs for arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(7):977-983.
72.
SchulzMSSteenlageESRusseKStrobelMJ. Distribution of posterior tibial displacement in knees with posterior cruciate ligament tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(2):332-338.
73.
SekiyaJKHaemmerleMJStabileKJVogrinTMHarnerCD. Biomechanical analysis of a combined double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(3):360-369.
74.
SekiyaJKWhiddonDRZehmsCTMillerMD. A clinically relevant assessment of posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner injuries: evaluation of isolated and combined deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(8):1621-1627.
75.
ShearnJTGroodESNoyesFRLevyMS. Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how bundle tension depends on femoral placement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(6):1262-1270.
SkyharMJWarrenRFOrtizGJSchwartzEOtisJC. The effects of sectioning of the posterior cruciate ligament and the posterolateral complex on the articular contact pressures within the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(5):694-699.
78.
TajimaGNozakiMIriuchishimaT. Morphology of the tibial insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(4):859-866.
79.
TakahashiMMatsubaraTDoiMSuzukiDNaganoA. Anatomical study of the femoral and tibial insertions of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles of human posterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(11):1055-1059.
80.
Van de VeldeSKBinghamJTGillTJLiG. Analysis of tibiofemoral cartilage deformation in the posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):167-175.
81.
Van DommelenBAFowlerPJ. Anatomy of the posterior cruciate ligament: a review. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17(1):24-29.
82.
VeltriDMWarrenRF. Isolated and combined posterior cruciate ligament injuries. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1993;1(2):67-75.
83.
WangCJChanYSWengLHYuanLJChenHS. Comparison of autogenous and allogenous posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee. Injury. 2004;35(12):1279-1285.
84.
WangCJWengLHHsuCCChanYS. Arthroscopic single- versus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring autograft. Injury. 2004;35(12):1293-1299.
85.
WeimannAWolfertAZantopTEggersAKRaschkeMPetersenW. Reducing the “killer turn” in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by fixation level and smoothing the tibial aperture. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(10):1104-1111.
86.
WhiddonDRZehmsCTMillerMDQuinbyJSMontgomerySLSekiyaJK. Double compared with single-bundle open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a cadaver model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(9):1820-1829.
87.
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(5):741-748.
88.
ZehmsCTWhiddonDRMillerMD. Comparison of a double bundle arthroscopic inlay and open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using clinically relevant tools: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(4):472-480.
