Evidence Hub

Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Tibial Avulsion Fractures Treated with a Mini-Open Posterior Approach and Internal Fixation: A Case Series

M. B. Lingayat, Priyanka Sundriyal, Shehzad Ghazi, Kiran Shelke, D. Bhujbal, Mayur Patil

Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports, 2026

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is a key posterior stabilizer of the knee, and its injuries commonly present as bony avulsion fractures at the tibial insertion rather than midsubstance tears. Displaced fractures (Meyers–McKeever type II–IV) generally require surgical fixation to restore posterior stability and prevent chronic laxity, pain, and premature osteoarthritis. The mini-open posterior approach allows direct visualization and anatomical reduction of the avulsed fragment while minimizing neurovascular risk. Case Series: We present a prospective series of patients (age range 20–65 years) with displaced PCL tibial avulsion fractures treated with the mini-open posterior approach and internal fixation using cannulated cancellous screws. Injury mechanisms included road traffic accidents and sports injuries. All patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months and assessed clinically and radiologically, with functional outcomes recorded using the Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. Fracture union was achieved in nearly all patients by approximately 12 weeks. Mean Lysholm score improved from 52.3 ± 10.5 preoperatively to 93.6 ± 4.2 postoperatively, and mean IKDC score improved from 48.7 ± 9.8 to 90.1 ± 5.3. Mean flexion improved from 95.2° ± 15.4 to 128.6° ± 8.7. Tegner Active score increased from 2.0 ± 0.8 to 5.5 ± 0.9. KT arthrometer improved from 8.1 ± 2.0 to 1.6 ± 0.7. Complications were infrequent and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free