In reply to chanandler bong:
There is not a ton of reliable data about PCL reconstruction. Outcomes both with and without tend to be fairly good, but anecdotally lots of very active people seem to find that without surgery their knee deteriorates quite quickly. This might well have happened with surgery though, so it's far from conclusive.
I badly tore my MCL and completely ruptured my PCL in Febuary 2012. Since then I've done a lot of hiking, skiing, climbing and gym work without any major issues. I didn't have surgery. Aggressive heel hooks, big drop knees and running downhill or on roads can all cause issues (aching or pain), so I now avoid them.
As Fultonius points out, the other structures in the knee are very important, and I was lucky that my MCL healed well, and that everything else was in very good shape. I was also quite strong in the legs before the injury and was able to rehab very aggressively.
I'm not convinced from reading about surgery that a PCL fix would actually solve the problems/limitations that I currently have. One thing that does play on my mind is that I am missing 'backup' in that knee. The PCL is a very large tendon that holds the entire knee together; if I take a big twisting fall, the other ligaments are at much greater risk of damage. If I was into highballing, or had a job that took me onto rough/slippery ground often, I would think about surgery for that reason alone.
All of this might give you some clue as to whether you could manage without PCL reconstruction. But this is only relevant if you think the risks and/or additional recovery time give you a reason to avoid it.
Fultonius might have some more insight on that side of things, and you might want to discsuss those things in detail with your surgeon so you can weigh the tradeoff properly.
I didn't really have the same choice, since
a) I didn't need surgery for any other reason, and
b) I would have had to pay for the op myself
Hope that helps, and good luck with the recovery.
