Original article| Volume 22, ISSUE 3, P320-328, March 2006

Comparison of Tibial Inlay Versus Transtibial Techniques for Isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

      Purpose: Surgical treatment of isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries is controversial. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of PCL reconstruction. Two techniques were compared, the traditional endoscopic and the more recent tibial inlay, to determine if the inlay technique yielded more stable reconstructions. Type of Study: Retrospective study of surgical outcomes. Methods: Between 1980 and 1997, 29 patients underwent surgery for isolated PCL injuries at our institution. Two patients underwent primary repair, 4 underwent primary repair with semitendinosus-gracilis augmentation, and 1 had a tibial inlay with a double femoral tunnel, and these patients were excluded from this study. Two patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 20 patients who were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 5.7 years (range, 2 to 15 years). The average age at surgery was 29 years (range, 17 to 49 years). The primary indication for surgery was instability (95%). The surgical procedures included 13 traditional endoscopic transtibial PCL reconstructions (9 bone–patellar tendon–bone [BPTB] autograft, 2 BPTB allograft, and 2 allograft Achilles tendon) and 7 tibial inlay (all BPTB, 5 allograft and 2 autograft). Each patient was evaluated using the Tegner, Lysholm, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) knee-rating scales, physical examination, corrected KT-1000 arthrometry, functional testing, and radiographs. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact t test, Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, and Mann-Whitney test. Results: Overall, 90% pf patients were satisfied with their surgery. The postoperative posterior drawer test result improved in 4 of 7 (57%) in the inlay group, and in 5 of 13 (38%) in the endoscopic group. The mean corrected KT-1000 measurement was 5.7 mm overall, 5.5 mm (inlay) and 5.9 mm (endoscopic). The mean preoperative Tegner score was 6.86 (inlay) and 6.92 (endoscopic). The mean postoperative Tegner score was 6.00 for both groups. The mean Lysholm score was 76 (inlay) and 82 (endoscopic), and the AAOS knee score was 77 (inlay) and 90 (endoscopic). There was a trend toward increased radiographic progression of Fairbanks changes in the medial and patellofemoral compartments in the endoscopic group, but the numbers did not reach statistical significance (P = .057). Conclusions: When comparing the traditional endoscopic reconstructions with the tibial inlay technique, there were no significant differences in posterior drawer testing, KT-1000, functional testing, or Lysholm, Tegner, and AAOS knee scores at a minimum 2 year follow-up. Clinical Relevance: The results of this study indicate that neither method (transtibial or inlay) of PCL reconstruction consistently restores anteroposterior stability to its original state when using a single-bundle femoral attachment site.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Fanelli G.C.
        • Edson C.J.
        Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients.
        Arthroscopy. 1995; 11: 526-529
        • Clancy Jr, W.G.
        • Sutherland T.B.
        Combined posterior cruciate ligament injuries.
        Clin Sports Med. 1994; 13: 629-647
        • Shelbourne K.D.
        • Davis T.J.
        • Patel D.V.
        The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries. A prospective study.
        Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27: 276-283
        • Boynton M.D.
        • Tietjens B.R.
        Long-term follow-up of the untreated isolated posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee.
        Am J Sports Med. 1996; 24: 306-310
        • Clancy Jr, W.G.
        • Shelbourne K.D.
        • Zoellner G.B.
        • Keene J.S.
        • Reider B.
        • Rosenberg T.D.
        Treatment of knee joint instability secondary to rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983; 65: 310-322
        • Keller P.M.
        • Shelbourne K.D.
        • McCarroll J.R.
        • Rettig A.C.
        Nonoperatively treated isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries.
        Am J Sports Med. 1993; 21: 132-136
        • Girgis F.G.
        • Marshall J.L.
        • Monajem A.
        The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint. Anatomical, functional and experimental analysis.
        Clin Orthop. 1975; : 216-231
        • Miller M.D.
        • Bergfeld J.A.
        • Fowler P.J.
        • Harner C.D.
        • Noyes F.R.
        The posterior cruciate ligament injured knee.
        Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48: 199-207
        • Berg E.E.
        Posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction.
        Arthroscopy. 1995; 11: 69-76
        • Miller M.D.
        • Warner J.P.
        Review of sports medicine and arthroscopy. WB Saunders, Philadelphia1995: 9-10
        • Noyes F.R.
        • Barber-Westin S.D.
        • Grood E.S.
        Newer concepts in the treatment of posterior cruciate ligament ruptures.
        in: Insall J.N. Scott W.N. Surgery of the knee. Ed 3. 2001: 850-852
        • Daniel D.M.
        • Stone M.L.
        • Barnett P.
        • Sachs R.
        Use of the quadriceps active test to diagnose posterior cruciate-ligament disruption and measure posterior laxity of the knee.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988; 70: 386-391
        • Fanelli G.C.
        • Giannotti B.F.
        • Edson C.J.
        The posterior cruciate ligament arthroscopic evaluation and treatment.
        Arthroscopy. 1994; 10: 673-688
        • Burks R.T.
        • Schaffer J.J.
        A simplified approach to the tibial attachment of the posterior cruciate ligament.
        Clin Orthop. 1990; : 216-219
        • Bergfeld J.A.
        • McAllister D.R.
        • Parker R.D.
        • Valdevit A.D.
        • Kambic H.E.
        A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques.
        Am J Sports Med. 2001; 29: 129-136
        • Lipscomb Jr, A.B.
        • Anderson A.F.
        • Norwig E.D.
        • Hovis W.D.
        • Brown D.L.
        Isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Long-term results.
        Am J Sports Med. 1993; 21: 490-496
        • Hughston J.C.
        • Bowden J.A.
        • Andrews J.R.
        • Norwood L.A.
        Acute tears of the posterior cruciate ligament.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980; 62: 438-450
        • Cross M.J.
        • Powell J.F.
        Long-term follow-up of posterior cruciate ligament rupture.
        Am J Sports Med. 1984; 12: 292-297
        • Schulte K.R.
        • Chu E.T.
        • Fu F.H.
        Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
        Clin Sports Med. 1997; 16: 145-156

      Linked Article

      • Errata
        ArthroscopyVol. 22Issue 6
        • Preview
          In the article “Comparison of Tibial Inlay Versus Transtibial Techniques for Isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up” by MacGillivray et al. in the March 2006 issue of Arthroscopy (2006;22:320-328), there was an error in the abstract. The correct first sentence in the Methods section of the abstract is “Between 1980 and 1997, 29 patients underwent surgery for isolated PCL injuries at our institution.”
        • Full-Text
        • PDF