2025 ISAKOS Biennial Congress Paper
Internal Bracing in Primary PCL Reconstruction Shows No Clinical, Functional, or Radiological Advantages
Svenja Höger, MD, Munich, BY GERMANY
Maximilian Hinz, MD, Munich GERMANY
Philipp Wilhelm Winkler, MD, Assoc. Prof., Linz AUSTRIA
Phillip Schulz, Cand. med., Munich GERMANY
Philipp Forkel, MD GERMANY
Bastian Scheiderer, MD, Munich, Bavaria GERMANY
Sebastian Siebenlist, MD, MHBA, Prof., Munich, Bavaria GERMANY
Julian Mehl, MD, Munich, Bavaria GERMANY
Department of Sports Orthopaedics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, GERMANY
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary
This study assessed the impact of internal bracing on posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCL-R) outcomes. Preliminary results showed no significant differences in clinical, functional, or radiological outcomes between patients with and without bracing, though further research may reveal potential benefits of bracing.
Abstract
Background
The objective of this study was to investigate whether augmentation of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCL-R) using internal bracing has an impact on clinical and functional outcomes as well as radiological stability.
Methods
Patients who underwent surgical treatment for a PCL rupture with PCL-R with (Group 1) or without (Group 2) additional bracing using FiberTape (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) between January 2010 and December 2020 were included. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed using the Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form (IKDC-SKF), Lysholm Score, and a visual analog scale for pain (VAS). Bilateral stress radiographs (Telos™) were performed to measure posterior tibial translation in comparison to the contralateral side. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
Results
Thirty patients (mean age 40.2 ± 11.1 years; 22 males, 8 with bracing) were included. The follow-up period was 88.1 ± 39.2 months. Preliminary data showed no significant differences between the two groups in functional scores (TAS: Group 1: 3.0 [IQR, 1.5] vs. Group 2: 4.0 [IQR, 2], n.s.; IKDC-SKF: Group 1: 64.6 ± 9.9 vs. Group 2: 63.8 ± 10.9, n.s.; Lysholm: Group 1: 75.8 ± 23.8 vs. Group 2: 79.7 ± 16.4, n.s.). Posterior tibial translation at follow-up also showed no significant differences between the groups (Group 1: 4.8 ± 4.5 mm vs. Group 2: 3.8 ± 2.9 mm, n.s.).
Conclusion
A presumed stability advantage in the group with additional bracing could not be demonstrated in our study due to the small group size. In these preliminary results, primary isolated PCL-R with additional bracing did not provide superior clinical, functional, or radiological outcomes compared to PCL-R without bracing after a minimum follow-up of two years.