Gait Adaptations at 8 Years after Reconstruction of Unilateral Isolated and Combined Posterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

Background: It remains unclear how posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction influences long-term lower extremity joint biomechanics. Purpose: To determine whether patients who underwent PCL reconstruction exhibited long-term alterations in lower limb gait mechanics. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 26 patients underwent gait analyses at 8.2 ± 2.6 years after primary unilateral PCL reconstruction. Sex- and age-matched healthy controls were analyzed for comparison. Gait data were collected using motion capture and force plates. Hip, knee, and ankle angles and moments were compared during initial contact, early stance, and late stance for the reconstructed and uninjured contralateral limbs of patients who underwent PCL reconstruction (PCL group) as well as the limbs of healthy control participants (CON group). Results: No side-to-side kinematic differences were noted between the reconstructed and contralateral limbs of the PCL group; some trivial differences were noted in knee and hip moments. However, major differences between the PCL and CON groups occurred at the knee. Reconstructed and contralateral limbs of the PCL group exhibited larger knee flexion angles during initial contact (Δ = 7.0° [ P < .001] and Δ = 6.9° [ P < .001], respectively), early stance (Δ = 5.8° [ P = .003] and Δ = 6.7° [ P < .001], respectively), and late stance (Δ = 7.9° [ P < .001] and Δ = 8.0° [ P < .001], respectively) compared with the CON group. During early stance, contralateral limbs of the PCL group displayed larger knee flexion moments (Δ = 0.20 N·m/kg; P = .014) compared with the CON group, and both reconstructed (Δ = 0.05 N·m/kg; P = .027) and contralateral (Δ = 0.07 N·m/kg; P = .001) limbs of the PCL group exhibited larger knee external rotation moments compared with the CON group. During late stance, reconstructed and contralateral limbs of the PCL group exhibited smaller knee extension moments (Δ = 0.24 N·m/kg [ P < .001] and Δ = 0.26 N·m/kg [ P < .001], respectively) and knee internal rotation moments (Δ = 0.06 N·m/kg [ P < .001] and Δ = 0.06 N·m/kg [ P < .001], respectively) compared with the CON group. No discrepancies were observed at the hip; minimal differences were noted in sagittal-plane ankle mechanics. Conclusion: Patients who underwent PCL reconstruction generally exhibited bilateral gait symmetry at 8 years after surgery. However, they exhibited important biomechanical deviations in both knees compared with healthy controls. These modifications likely reflect adaptive gait strategies to protect the PCL after reconstruction. Clinical Relevance: Long-term follow-up analyses of patients who underwent PCL reconstruction should not use the uninjured contralateral limb as a “healthy” reference, as it also exhibits mechanical differences compared with controls. Results could inform the development of neuromuscular and strength training programs targeting the restoration of knee biomechanics similar to healthy controls to prevent early-onset degeneration that is frequently associated with altered biomechanics.