No consensus has been reached on the optimal position of PCL tibial tunnel. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of proximal, distal and anatomic tibial tunnel in transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in-vitro model of transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was simulated using porcine tibias and bovine extensor tendons. Two models of biomechanical testing, load-to-failure loading, and cyclic loading, were performed in this study. The load-to-failure loading found that distal tibial tunnel resulted in greater ultimate load and yield load than the anatomic and proximal tunnel group (p < 0.05), whereas there were no significant differences in mean tensile stiffness among three groups (p > 0.05). The cyclic loading found no differences in the graft displacement at 250, 500, and 1000 cycles among three groups (p > 0.05). It was found that distal tibial tunnel showed superior ultimate load and yield load in load-to-failure loading testing compared with proximal and anatomic tibial tunnels, whereas no significant difference was found in terms of the mean displacement of the survived grafts in cyclic loading testing among three groups.
LaPradeCMCivitareseDMRasmussenMT, et al. Emerging updates on the posterior cruciate ligament: a review of the current literature. Am J Sports Med2015; 43: 3077–3092.
2.
BediAMusahlVCowanJB.Management of posterior cruciate ligament injuries: an evidence-based review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2016; 24: 277–289.
3.
DoldAPSwensenSStraussE, et al. The posteromedial corner of the knee: anatomy, pathology, and management strategies. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2017; 25: 752–761.
4.
LynchTBChahlaJNuelleCW.Anatomy and biomechanics of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Knee Surg2021; 34: 499–508.
5.
AhnJHBaeJHLeeYS, et al. An anatomical and biomechanical comparison of anteromedial and anterolateral approaches for tibial tunnel of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evaluation of the widening effect of the anterolateral approach. Am J Sports Med2009; 37: 1777–1783.
6.
KimYMLeeCAMatavaMJ.Clinical results of arthroscopic single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med2011; 39: 425–434.
7.
WeimannAWolfertAZantopT, et al. Reducing the “killer turn” in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by fixation level and smoothing the tibial aperture. Arthroscopy2007; 23: 1104–1111.
8.
HuangT-WWangC-JWengL-H, et al. Reducing the “killer turn” in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy2003; 19: 712–716.
9.
LiYZhangJSongG, et al. The mechanism of “killer turn” causing residual laxity after transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol2016; 3: 13–18.
10.
TengYZhangXMaC, et al. Evaluation of the permissible maximum angle of the tibial tunnel in transtibial anatomic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by computed tomography. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2019; 139: 547–552.
SalimRNascimentoFMDFerreiraAM, et al. Tibial onlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: surgical technique and results. J Knee Surg2018; 31: 284–290.
13.
SongJGKimHJHanJH, et al. Clinical outcome of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without remnant preservation. Arthroscopy2015; 31: 1796–1806.
14.
LeeDWKimJGYangSJ, et al. Return to sports and clinical outcomes after arthroscopic anatomic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation. Arthroscopy2019; 35: 2658–2668.e2651.
OkoroaforUCSaint-PreuxFGillSW, et al. Nonanatomic tibial tunnel placement for single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction leads to greater posterior tibial translation in a biomechanical model. Arthroscopy2016; 32: 1354–1358.
20.
LinYHuangZZhangK, et al. Lower tibial tunnel placement in isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes and quantitative radiological analysis of the killer turn. Orthop J Sports Med2020; 8: 2325967120923950.
21.
AerssensJBoonenSLowetG, et al. Interspecies differences in bone composition, density, and quality: potential implications for in vivo bone research. Endocrinology1998; 139: 663–670.
22.
NagarkattiDGMcKeonBPDonahueBS, et al. Mechanical evaluation of a soft tissue interference screw in free tendon anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation. Am J Sports Med2001; 29: 67–71.
23.
DonahueTLGregersenCHullML, et al. Comparison of viscoelastic, structural, and material properties of double-looped anterior cruciate ligament grafts made from bovine digital extensor and human hamstring tendons. J Biomech Eng2001; 123: 162–169.
24.
ZhangXTengYLiR, et al. Proximal, distal, and combined fixation within the tibial tunnel in transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a time-zero biomechanical study in vitro. Arthroscopy2019; 35: 1667–1673.
25.
AgaCRasmussenMTSmithSD, et al. Biomechanical comparison of interference screws and combination screw and sheath devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the tibial side. Am J Sports Med2013; 41: 841–848.
26.
LevyBAPiepenbrinkMStuartMJ, et al. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with independent suture tape reinforcement: an in vitro biomechanical full construct study. Orthop J Sports Med2021; 9: 2325967120981875.
27.
GillTJVan de VeldeSKCarrollKM, et al. Surgical technique: aperture fixation in PCL reconstruction: applying biomechanics to surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 853–860.
28.
ShinYSHanSBHwangYK, et al. Tibial tunnel aperture location during single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of tibial guide positions. Arthroscopy2015; 31: 874–881.
29.
VasdevARajgopalAGuptaH, et al. Arthroscopic all-inside posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: overcoming the “Killer Turn”. Arthrosc Tech2016; 5: e501–e506.
30.
NancooTJLordBYasenSK, et al. TransMedial all-inside posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a reinforced tibial inlay graft. Arthrosc Tech2013; 2: e381–e388.
31.
EdwardsABullAMAmisAA.The attachments of the fiber bundles of the posterior cruciate ligament: an anatomic study. Arthroscopy2007; 23: 284–290.
32.
VoosJEMauroCSWenteT, et al. Posterior cruciate ligament: anatomy, biomechanics, and outcomes. Am J Sports Med2012; 40: 222–231.
33.
LeeYSWangJHBaeJH, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of cross-pin versus interference screw tibial fixation using a soft-tissue graft during transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy2009; 25: 989–995.
34.
NurmiJTKannusPSievänenH, et al. Interference screw fixation of soft tissue grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: part 2: effect of preconditioning on graft tension during and after screw insertion. Am J Sports Med2004; 32: 418–424.
35.
BenedettoKPHoffelnerTOstiM.The biomechanical characteristics of arthroscopic tibial inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: in vitro comparison of tibial graft tunnel placement. Int Orthop2014; 38: 2363–2368.
36.
DomnickCKöstersCFrankeF, et al. Biomechanical properties of different fixation techniques for posterior cruciate ligament avulsion fractures. Arthroscopy2016; 32: 1065–1071.
37.
MarkolfKLZemanovicJRMcAllisterDR.Cyclic loading of posterior cruciate ligament replacements fixed with tibial tunnel and tibial inlay methods. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84: 518–524.
38.
HiganoMTachibanaYSakaguchiK, et al. Effects of tunnel dilation and interference screw position on the biomechanical properties of tendon graft fixation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy2013; 29: 1804–1810.
39.
GallowayMTGroodESMehalikJN, et al. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vitro study of femoral and tibial graft placement. Am J Sports Med1996; 24: 437–445.
40.
MarkolfKLMcAllisterDRYoungCR, et al. Biomechanical effects of medial-lateral tibial tunnel placement in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Res2003; 21: 177–182.
41.
YoonKHKimJSParkJY, et al. Comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes between an anatomic tunnel and a low tibial tunnel in remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med2021; 9: 2325967120985153.
42.
DeFrateLEvan der VenAGillTJ, et al. The effect of length on the structural properties of an Achilles tendon graft as used in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med2004; 32: 993–997.
