Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (854 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A strong ligament of the knee that originates from the anterolateral surface of the medial condyle of the femur, passes posteriorly and inferiorly between the condyles, and attaches to the posterior intercondylar area of the tibia.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Cruciate Ligament, Posterior; Cruciate Ligaments, Posterior; Ligament, Posterior Cruciate; Ligaments, Posterior Cruciate; Posterior Cruciate Ligaments.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Ligaments, Articular
- See also
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Medial Collateral Ligament, Knee
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 2,930 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Posterior Cruciate Ligament” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 623 of them (21.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 995 records.
Reviews account for 405 records (13.8%) and meta-analyses for 41. Randomized controlled trials number 81 (2.8%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 485 |
| 2000-2009 | 827 |
| 2010-2019 | 995 |
| 2020 onward | 623 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 405 | 13.8% |
| Meta-analyses | 41 | 1.4% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 81 | 2.8% |
Method: PubMed query "Posterior Cruciate Ligament"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Posterior Cruciate Ligament Retention versus Posterior Stabilization for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- IntroductionAlthough being debated for many years, the superiority of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA remains controversial.
- Closing excerpt
- 65, pConclusionsThere are no clinically relevant differences between CR and PS TKA in terms of clinical, functional, radiological outcome, and complications, while PS TKA is superior to CR TKA in respects of ROM, while whether this superiority matters or not in clinical practice still needs further investigation and longer follow-up.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (204 words)
IntroductionAlthough being debated for many years, the superiority of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA remains controversial. We compare the knee scores, post-operative knee range of motion (ROM), radiological outcomes about knee kinematic and complications between CR TKA and PS TKA.MethodsLiterature published up to August 2015 was searched in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, and meta-analysis was performed using the software, Review Manager version 5.3.ResultsTotally 14 random control trials (RCTs) on this topic were included for the analysis, which showed that PS and CR TKA had no significant difference in Knee Society knee Score (KSS), pain score (KSPS), Hospital for Special Surgery score (HSS), kinematic characteristics including postoperative component alignment, tibial posterior slope and joint line, and complication rate. However, PS TKA is superior to CR TKA regarding post-operative knee range of motion (ROM) [Random Effect model (RE), Mean Difference (MD) = -7.07, 95% Confidential Interval (CI) -10.50 to -3.65, pConclusionsThere are no clinically relevant differences between CR and PS TKA in terms of clinical, functional, radiological outcome, and complications, while PS TKA is superior to CR TKA in respects of ROM, while whether this superiority matters or not in clinical practice still needs further investigation and longer follow-up.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 26824368 · DOI · PMC4732820
Cruciate ligament reconstruction and risk of knee osteoarthritis: the association between cruciate ligament injury and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. a population based nationwide study in Sweden, 1987-2009 [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveTo study the association between Cruciate Ligament (CL) injury and development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in the knee in patients treated operatively with CL reconstruction compared with patients treated non-operatively.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionCL reconstructive surgery does not seem to have a protective effect on long term OA in either men or women.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (190 words)
ObjectiveTo study the association between Cruciate Ligament (CL) injury and development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in the knee in patients treated operatively with CL reconstruction compared with patients treated non-operatively.DesignPopulation based cohort study; level of evidence II-2.SettingSweden, 1987-2009.ParticipantsAll patients aged between 15-60 years being diagnosed and registered with a CL injury in The National Swedish Patient Register between 1987 and 2009.Main outcome measuresKnee osteoarthritis.ResultsA total of 64,614 patients diagnosed with CL injury during 1987 to 2009 in Sweden were included in the study. Seven percent of the patients were diagnosed with knee OA in specialized healthcare during the follow-up (mean 9 years). Stratified analysis by follow-up showed that while those with shorter follow-up had a non-significant difference in risk (0.99, 95%CI 0.90-1.09 for follow-up less than five years compared with the non-operated cohort), those with longer follow-up had an increased risk of knee OA after CL reconstruction (HR = 1.42, 95%CI 1.27-1.58 for follow-up more than ten years compared with non-operated cohort). The risk to develop OA was not affected by sex.ConclusionCL reconstructive surgery does not seem to have a protective effect on long term OA in either men or women.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 25148530 · DOI · PMC4141753
Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeThe main purpose of the study was to provide an overview of injury mechanisms, concomitant injuries, and other relevant epidemiological data for patients treated in Scandinavia with posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) following a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury.
- Closing excerpt
- Level of evidenceII.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (265 words)
PurposeThe main purpose of the study was to provide an overview of injury mechanisms, concomitant injuries, and other relevant epidemiological data for patients treated in Scandinavia with posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) following a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury.MethodsA total number of 1287 patients who underwent PCLR from 2004 to 2013 in the Scandinavian counties were included from the national ligament registries. The variables such as age, sex, activity, and graft used for reconstruction were collected. Then, injuries were sorted based on concomitant injuries. Finally, data from the different registries were compared.ResultsAverage age of the treated patients was 32.7 years. Sex distribution ratio of male to female was 858:429 (66.7 %:33.3 %). Depending on definition, 26-37 % of the injuries treated were isolated PCL injuries. PCL injuries were most commonly encountered in sports with 35.4 % of the total number of PCL injuries in the study population. Soccer was the sport with the highest number of injuries (13.1 %). Cartilage lesions occurred in 26.1 % of PCL injuries and meniscal lesions in 21.0 %. Minimum one other additional ligament was injured in 62.2 %.ConclusionIsolated PCL injuries are common, although the injury is most commonly associated with other ligament injuries. There is a high prevalence of cartilage injuries and meniscal lesions associated with PCL injuries. Sports are the leading cause of PCL injuries treated operatively. Epidemiological data are a necessary part of the basis for injury prevention in the future. The prevalence of concomitant injuries is also relevant and clinically important for the choice of surgical procedure and for the expected outcomes following surgery.Level of evidenceII.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 26387121 · DOI · PMC5522502
Treatment of isolated injuries of the posterior cruciate ligament-A 2025 Delphi-based structured expert statement by the ligament injury committee of the German Knee Society [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeThe main goal was to perform a modified Delphi process with the Ligament Injuries Committee of the German Knee Society (DKG) to structure and optimize the management of isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries.
- Closing excerpt
- Level of evidenceLevel V.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (195 words)
PurposeThe main goal was to perform a modified Delphi process with the Ligament Injuries Committee of the German Knee Society (DKG) to structure and optimize the management of isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries.MethodsA structured modified Delphi approach was used to develop an expert statement. Steering group formulated an initial questionnaire and distributed it to 15 experienced knee surgeons (male/female 13/2, mean age 45 ± 5 years) of the working group in Round 1. Thirty-one statements covering five thematic topics were then derived from the responses and comprehensive literature search (Medline, Scopus and Cochrane) using variations of different search terms (literature group). The statements underwent two rating cycles by the working group, using a 5-point Likert scale in Round 2 and as a binary 'agree/disagree' in the final third round. Levels of evidence were assigned to each statement using standardized A-E and GRADE grading systems based on the available data.ResultsHigh agreement (≥80%) was achieved for 24 of the 31 statements (range, 83%-100%), whereas for 7 agreement was ConclusionBy providing structured treatment protocols, this Delphi-based structured expert statement can support clinicians in day-to-day decision-making and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes.Study designExpert survey.Level of evidenceLevel V.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41243402 · DOI · PMC12747655
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Evaluation and treatment of posterior cruciate ligament injuries [5]
- Research article Emerging Updates on the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Review of the Current Literature [6]
- Research article Anatomy of the posterior cruciate ligament and the meniscofemoral ligaments [7]
- Research article The multiple-ligament injured knee: evaluation, treatment, and results [8]
- Research article Arthroscopic evaluation of articular cartilage lesions in posterior-cruciate-ligament-deficient knees [9]
- Research article The posterior cruciate ligament arthroscopic evaluation and treatment [10]
References
- Jiang C, Liu Z, Wang Y, Bian Y, Feng B, Weng X. Posterior Cruciate Ligament Retention versus Posterior Stabilization for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis. . 2016. PMID 26824368 · DOI · PMC4732820
- Nordenvall R, Bahmanyar S, Adami J, Mattila VM, Felländer-Tsai L. Cruciate ligament reconstruction and risk of knee osteoarthritis: the association between cruciate ligament injury and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. a population based nationwide study in Sweden, 1987-2009. . 2014. PMID 25148530 · DOI · PMC4141753
- Owesen C, Sandven-Thrane S, Lind M, Forssblad M, Granan LP, Årøen A. Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia. . 2017. PMID 26387121 · DOI · PMC5522502
- Eberle C, Dan Milinkovic D, Achtnich A, Best R, Braun PJ, Eggeling L, et al.. Treatment of isolated injuries of the posterior cruciate ligament-A 2025 Delphi-based structured expert statement by the ligament injury committee of the German Knee Society. . 2026. PMID 41243402 · DOI · PMC12747655
- Harner CD, Höher J. Evaluation and treatment of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1998. PMID 9617416 · DOI
- LaPrade CM, Civitarese DM, Rasmussen MT, LaPrade RF. Emerging Updates on the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Review of the Current Literature. Am J Sports Med. 2015. PMID 25776184 · DOI
- Amis AA, Gupte CM, Bull AM, Edwards A. Anatomy of the posterior cruciate ligament and the meniscofemoral ligaments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006. PMID 16228178 · DOI
- Fanelli GC, Orcutt DR, Edson CJ. The multiple-ligament injured knee: evaluation, treatment, and results. Arthroscopy. 2005. PMID 15800529 · DOI
- Strobel MJ, Weiler A, Schulz MS, Russe K, Eichhorn HJ. Arthroscopic evaluation of articular cartilage lesions in posterior-cruciate-ligament-deficient knees. Arthroscopy. 2003. PMID 12627150 · DOI
- Fanelli GC, Giannotti BF, Edson CJ. The posterior cruciate ligament arthroscopic evaluation and treatment. Arthroscopy. 1994. PMID 7880360 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.