In the early 1990s, a new technique for tibial graft fixation in PCL-R, termed the tibial inlay technique, was introduced [
8,
27]. The tibial inlay technique was subsequently advocated to prevent increased graft stress, degeneration, and abrasion caused by the so-called ‘’killer turn’’ at the proximal tibial tunnel aperture in transtibial PCL-R [
8]. However, a recently published study reported that remnant preservation in acute transtibial PCL-R enables to avoid the negative influence of the killer turn by a cushioning effect of the remnant PCL fibers [
39]. Unfortunately, remnant preservation is not possible in chronic PCL deficiency and revision PCL-R, and, therefore, the tibial inlay technique has been suggested as a viable treatment alternative for such cases [
41,
42,
59]. In spite of a biomechanically confirmed superiority of the tibial inlay technique compared to the transtibial technique in terms of residual posterior tibial laxity and graft degeneration [
9], this is not translated into clinical outcomes [
40,
50,
70,
75]. Since research has shown that there is no significant correlation between residual posterior tibial laxity and patient-reported outcomes, the biomechanically suggested superiority of the tibial inlay compared to the transtibial technique needs to be questioned [
64,
73]. In one study, the tibial inlay technique was compared to the transtibial technique in 66 isolated PCL-Rs at a mean follow-up of 148 months [
77]. Patients undergoing isolated tibial inlay PCL-R (
n = 30) with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft showed no difference in postoperative patient-reported outcomes (Lysholm Score and Tegner Activity Scale), manual laxity testing (posterior drawer test at 90° knee flexion), instrumented posterior laxity testing (stress radiographs at 90° knee flexion), and progression of OA compared to patients undergoing transtibial PCL-R (
n = 36) with hamstring tendon autograft [
77]. Consistently, most studies report statistically significant improvement in clinical and functional outcomes postoperatively compared to preoperatively [
50,
70,
77]. However, regardless of the performed tibial fixation technique, considerable rates of residual posterior tibial laxity are reported. One comparative study has shown that 46% and 57% of patients undergoing transtibial and tibial inlay PCL-R, respectively, reported residual episodes of subjective instability [
50]. On the other hand, the all-arthroscopic transtibial technique is surgically less demanding, avoids an invasive surgical approach, has a reduced operation time, has a lower risk of complications, and allows for the possibility for remnant preservation [
40,
70]. However, the tibial inlay technique demonstrates advantages for the treatment of chronic PCL injuries and for the increasing number of revision PCL-Rs [
8,
41,
42,
59]. Consequently, future research should focus on identifying specific indications for each technique and thus facilitate surgical decision-making.