ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of the posterior-posterior triangulation technique for arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction by comparing with the anteroposterior approach.MethodsRetrospective analysis was performed on 40 patients who underwent arthroscopic PCL reconstruction between February 2016 and February 2020. The PCLs were reconstructed via anteroposterior approach in 20 patients (anteroposterior approach group) and posterior-posterior triangulation technique in 20 patients (posterior-posterior triangulation technique group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, injury side, disease duration, preoperative International Knee Documentary Committee (IKDC) score, and Lysholm score between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, surgical complications, and postoperative posterior drawer test, Lysholm score, and IKDC score were recorded and compared between the two groups.ResultsThe operation time was (65.25±10.05) minutes in the anteroposterior approach group and (56.15±8.15) minutes in the posterior-posterior triangulation technique group, and the difference was significant (t=3.145, P=0.003). All incisions healed by first intention, and there was no complication such as vascular and nerve injuries or infection. Patients were followed up (27.05±11.95) months in the anteroposterior approach group and (21.40±7.82) months in the posterior-posterior triangulation technique group, with no significant difference (t=1.770, P=0.085). At last follow-up, the posterior drawer tests were positive in 4 cases (3 cases of stageⅠand 1 case of stage Ⅱ) of the anteroposterior approach group and in 1 case (stageⅠ) of the posterior-posterior triangulation technique group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.342). At last follow-up, Lysholm score and IKDC score in both groups were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05). The above functional scores in the posterior-posterior triangulation technique group were significantly higher than those in the anteroposterior approach group (P<0.05). Imaging reexamination showed that the position, shape, and tension of the grafts were well in both groups, and the grafts were covered with the synovium in the posterior-posterior triangulation technique group, the meniscofemoral ligaments were well preserved. There was no re-rupture of the reconstructed ligament during follow-up.ConclusionCompared to the anteroposterior approach, the posterior-posterior triangulation technique provides a clearer view under arthroscopy, no blind spot, sufficient operating space, and relative safety. Moreover, it is easier to retain the remnant and the meniscofemoral ligaments, and can obtain good short-term effectiveness.