A randomized prospective controlled study with 5-year follow-up of cross-pin femoral fixation versus metal interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Common Intraoperative Mistakes and Techniques for Error Recovery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a commonly performed procedure among general orthopedists, and is a logged procedure required for graduation from accredited orthopaedic residency programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

ACL reconstruction surgery has a number of critical steps, and intraoperative errors can significantly impact the success rate and morbidity of this operation. Technical errors are frequently cited as some of the most common reasons for ACL reconstruction failure. This narrative review provides low-volume surgeons and trainees with an overview of the common errors that can be made during the critical steps of an ACL reconstruction procedure. We suggest technical points for avoiding commonly-encountered errors and provide a description of evidence-supported error recovery techniques to address these errors if they occur intraoperatively. These key steps include femoral tunnel creation, tibial tunnel creation, graft harvest and preparation, and graft fixation within the tunnels. We discuss a number of primary and backup fixation strategies as well as all commonly used autografts (bone-patellar tendon-bone, hamstring, and quadriceps tendon). Additionally, we provide a brief overview on address intra-operative graft contamination citing currently available evidence.

Outcomes of RigidFix Cross Pin Fixation in Femoral and Tibial Tunnel for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

There is no clear consensus so far on which fixation method is most favorable for the tibial tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the outcome of RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel and to explore the advantages of RigidFix applied both in the femoral and tibial tunnel with hamstring tendon graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 53 patients (male/female, 45/8) who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons between January 2013 and December 2017 at our institute. The participants in group A (n = 36) received anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with RigidFix cross pins fixation in both femoral and tibial tunnels, while those in group B (n = 17) with RigidFix cross pins fixation in the femoral tunnel and Interference screw fixation in the tibial tunnel. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form 2000 (IKDC2000) score, Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity score and the side-to-side difference were compared at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. The graft diameter, number of strands in graft and the average diameter of each strand were also compared between the two groups. The categorical parameters were analyzed by chi-square test and the continuous variables conforming to a normal distribution were analyzed by Student's t-test.

RESULTS

At 2 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.61 ± 0.55), side-to-side difference (1.50 ± 0.58) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (88.81 ± 3.88), Tegner activity score (6.14 ± 0.60) in group A were significantly higher than that in group B. At 5 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.64 ± 0.68), side-to-side difference (1.73 ± 0.63) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (89.09 ± 3.85), Tegner activity score (6.58 ± 0.94) in group A were slso significantly higher than that in group B. There was statistical difference in the change of the side-to-side difference between the two groups (group A vs. B, 0.22 ± 0.08 vs. 0.34 ± 0.11, p < 0.001). There were also statistical differences in the graft diameter (group A vs. B, 7.83 ± 0.74 vs. 7.41 ± 0.51, p = 0,038), number of strands in graft (5.67 ± 0.72 vs. 4.00 ± 0.00, p < 0.001) and the average diameter of each strand (1.41 ± 0.22 vs. 1.85 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can achieve better 5-year results when compared with the interference screw, and the hamstring tendon can be folded into a thicker graft when RigidFix cross pins were applied in both femoral and tibial tunnels.

Femoral fixation methods for hamstring graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A network meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of cortical button (CB), cross-pin (CP) and compression with interference screws (IS) fixation techniques in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring graft.

METHODS

Studies were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to May 20, 2021. Primary outcomes were KT-1000 assessment, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score A or B, Lachman's test, pivot-shift test, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and Cincinnati Knee Score. Secondary outcomes included reconstruction failures and synovitis. League tables, rank probabilities and forest plots were drawn for efficacy comparison.

RESULTS

Twenty-six controlled clinical trials (CCTs) with 1,824 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with hamstring graft were included. No significant differences were found among CB, CP and IS fixation methods regarding the 10 outcomes. For KT-1000 assessment, IKDC score A or B, Lachman's test, VAS score and pivot-shift test, CP had the greatest probability of becoming the best method, and IS may be the suboptimal method in 4 out of these 5 outcomes except pivot-shift test.

CONCLUSIONS

CP, CB and IS fixations have comparable clinical performance, while CP fixation is most likely to be the optimum fixation technique for hamstring graft in ACL reconstruction. Future larger-sample studies of high quality comparing these techniques in more clinical outcomes are required.

A prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices-rigidfix, bioscrew, and intrafix-randomized into 4 groups with a minimum follow-up of 5 years

Background

ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) reconstruction remains the gold standard surgical option for patients with ACL tears. There are many fixation devices available for ACL reconstruction. Recent ACL reconstruction strategies are aiming to reproduce the native anatomy and normal kinematics of the knee. This is a five years follow-up report of some of the new devices for graft fixation. A two years follow-up data was published previously.

Methods

120 patients were randomized into four different groups (30 each) for ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendons: group I femoral Rigidfix cross-pin and Intrafix tibial extension sheath with a tapered expansion screw; group II Rigidfix femoral and BioScrew interference screw tibial fixation; group III BioScrew femoral and Intrafix tibial fixation; group IV BioScrew fixation into both tunnels. The evaluation methods were clinical examination, knee scores, and instrumented laxity measurements.

Results

In this 5 years follow-up there were 102/120 (85%) patients available, but only 77 (64,2%) attended the clinical examinations. No significant difference between the groups in the clinical results was detected. Between the 2 and 5 years follow-up there were 6 additional procedures in group I and one in group II. There was a significant difference in additional procedures between group I and the other groups (P = .041).

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant difference in the additional procedures, most in group I (six). The ACL grafts were intact. Other statistically or clinically significant differences in the 5 years follow-up results were not found.

Study design

Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Trial registration ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN34011837. Retrospectively registered 17.4.2020.

Interference screws are more likely to perform better than cortical button and cross-pin fixation for hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is widely accepted as the first choice of treatment for ACL injury, but there is disagreement in the literature regarding the optimal femoral fixation method. This meta-analysis assesses the evidence surrounding three common femoral fixation methods: cortical button (CB), cross-pin (CP) and interference screws (IS).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify studies with evidence level I or II that compared at least two femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft for ACL reconstruction. Ten primary outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were estimated using random-effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. Probability of ranking best (ProBest) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were used to rank all treatments. Funnel plots were used to identify publication bias and small-study effects.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinical trials were included for analysis out of 2536 retrieved studies. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed no significant differences among the three fixation methods for the ten primary outcome measures. Based on the 10 outcome measures, the IS, CB and CP had the highest ProBest in 5, 5 and 0 outcomes, and the highest SUCRA values in 5, 4 and 1 outcomes, respectively. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence, or publication bias was detected in the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There were no statistical differences in performance among the CP, CB and IS femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction, although the IS was more likely to perform better than CB and CP based on the analysis of outcome measures from the included studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Outcomes of trans-tibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a fovea landmark technique in relation to tunnel position and serial tunnel configuration

PURPOSE

To evaluate (1) the outcome of PCL reconstruction with tibial suspensory fixation using a fovea landmark technique based on the tunnel position and serial change of the tunnel configuration after trans-tibial PCL reconstruction, and (2) whether suspensory fixation has any harmful effect on the outcome.

METHODS

A total of 48 knees that underwent PCL reconstruction were included. The tunnel position was analyzed using CT. To analyze the tunnel configuration, the tunnel diameter, area, and volume were measured. To evaluate the outcome, pre- and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores were analyzed. To evaluate stability, a side-to-side difference was evaluated using Telos stress radiographs.

RESULTS

The greatest configurational change occurred at the mid-portion of tibial tunnel. There was a correlation between stability and tibial tunnel mid-portion configurational change (p < 0.01). Important correlations were found between the tunnel position and serial tunnel configuration between high femoral tunnel and widest site of femoral tunnel and tibia aperture (p < 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). The diameter of widest site of tibia tunnel increased when the tibia tunnel center moved toward the posterior margin of the tibia (p = 0.02) and the percentage of femoral tunnel volume enlargement increased when the tibia tunnel center moved toward the medial edge of the PCL fovea (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

A high femoral tunnel, medial tibial tunnel, and posterior tibial tunnel were related to the serial configurational change. A suspensory tibial fixation produced significant configurational change around the mid-portion of the tibial tunnel, and it induced a negative effect on stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Comparative Risk-Benefit Profiles of Individual Devices for Graft Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of individual devices for femoral and/or tibial graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to December 12, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing individual devices for ACL graft fixation were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy profile using the following outcomes: Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) category, laxity, range of motion, and Tegner score. The incidence of infection, effusion, and graft rupture for each device was reported.

RESULTS

We included 57 randomized controlled trials involving 4,304 patients aged 23.8 to 40.9 years. The female proportion ranged from 0% to 100%. The length of follow-up ranged from 6 to 144 months. Of the 13 studied femoral fixation devices, none was significantly different from the others regarding the Lysholm score, IKDC category, range of motion, and Tegner score. Bioabsorbable interference screws (standardized mean difference, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 0.0-2.5) showed higher laxity than the EndoPearl at a borderline level of statistical significance, but the difference varied substantially within multiple sensitivity analyses. Infection (2.0%) was most commonly seen with the EndoPearl, whereas the bone mulch screw had the highest incidence of effusion (5.5%) and graft rupture (5.5%). For the 9 studied tibial fixation devices, no significant difference was observed in the aforementioned efficacy measurements. Bioabsorbable interference screws with staples had the highest incidence of infection (11.1%) and effusion (15.6%), whereas graft rupture was most commonly seen with the bone plug (4.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Graft fixation devices in ACL reconstruction share a similar efficacy profile in terms of the Lysholm score, IKDC category, range of motion, and Tegner score but not laxity. On the other hand, safety profiles seem to vary among different devices. These findings can support surgeons, alongside their experience and preference, as well as the relative cost of each device, in delivering an individualized plan for an optimal operation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Femoral Interference Screw Fixation in ACL Reconstruction Using Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafts

» Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a commonly performed orthopaedic procedure with numerous reconstructive graft and fixation options. Interference screws have become one of the most commonly utilized methods of securing ACL grafts such as bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts. » The composition of interference screws has undergone substantial evolution over the past several decades, and numerous advantages and disadvantages are associated with each design. » The composition, geometry, and insertional torque of interference screws have important implications for screw biomechanics and may ultimately influence the strength, stability of graft fixation, and biologic healing in ACL reconstruction. » This article reviews the development and biomechanical properties of interference screws while examining outcomes, complications, and gaps in knowledge that are associated with the use of femoral interference screws during BPTB ACL reconstruction.

Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft

PURPOSE

Newer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral-tibial fixation methods.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007-2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral-tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral-tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral-tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory-interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference-interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory-combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin-interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin-interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65) and interference-interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) methods compared to the suspensory-interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin-interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37-3.32) and suspensory-combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.69) methods compared to suspensory-interference.

CONCLUSIONS

ACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

No difference in outcomes between femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is mixed opinion regarding the optimal femoral fixation method for hamstring tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Currently, no study exists showing a superior method of femoral fixation, and thus the topic has remained controversial. The purpose of this study is to network meta-analyze the randomized control trials comparing cortical-button (CB), cross-pin (CP) and interference screws (IS) for femoral fixation with hamstring tendon autograft in ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

The literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized control trials comparing CB, CP and IS were included. Clinical outcomes were compared using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis, with all statistical analysis performed using R, with a p-value <0.05 being considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 11 studies included comparing; 194 patients with CB to 201 patients with CP (6 studies), 48 patients with CB to 50 patients with IS (1 study), and 172 patients with CP to 162 patients with IS (5 studies). One study compared all three groups, including 48 patients with CB, 50 patients with IS, and 52 with CP. There was a mean follow-up time of 26.4 months. No statistically significant difference was found between the fixation methods when evaluating knee stability, functional outcomes, graft failures, or revision procedures.

CONCLUSION

Using a network meta-analysis, our study found that, there was no difference in failure rate, knee stability, functional outcomes or incidence of revision procedures between CB, CP or IS femoral fixation techniques of hamstring tendon autografts in ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, network meta-analysis of Level I studies.

Interference screw insertion angle has no effect on graft fixation strength for insertional Achilles tendon reconstruction

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of two interference screw insertion angles on the biomechanical properties of the insertional Achilles tendon (IAT) reconstruction.

METHODS

Nine matched pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric Achilles tendon specimens were randomized to two groups with interference screw insertion angles of 60° and 120°. The IAT reconstruction was performed by fixing the graft tendon with the interference screw. Each specimen was loaded to failure. The load at failure, stiffness, and mode of failure were documented. Differences in load at failure and stiffness were analysed.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the 60° and 120° groups for failure load (149.137 ± 20.836 versus 155.428 ± 28.343 N, respectively, n.s.) and stiffness (14.523 ± 2.824 N/mm versus 14.727 ± 2.192 N/mm, respectively, n.s.). The most common mode of failure was the graft pulling out of the bone tunnel when the screw broke.

CONCLUSIONS

Graft fixation at two different interference screw insertion angles for IAT reconstruction exhibited equivalent biomechanical performance. When performing this procedure, surgeons may choose the interference screw insertion angle based on personal preference.

High Rates of Osteoarthritis Develop After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery: An Analysis of 4108 Patients

BACKGROUND

Posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction ultimately translates into a large economic effect on the health care system owing to the young ages of this population. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purposes were to perform a meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of osteoarthritis after an ACL reconstruction, examining the effects of length of time after surgery, preoperative time interval from injury to surgery, and patient age at the time of surgery. It was hypothesized that the prevalence of PTOA increased with time from surgery and that increased time from injury to surgery and age were also risk factors for the development of PTOA.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of radiographic PTOA after ACL reconstruction was performed of studies with a minimum of 5 years' follow-up, with a level of evidence of 1, 2, or 3. The presence of osteoarthritis was defined according to knee radiographs evaluated with classification based on Kellgren and Lawrence, Ahlbäck, International Knee Documentation Committee, or the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Metaregression models quantified the relationship between radiographic PTOA prevalence and the mean time from injury to surgery, mean patient age at time of surgery, and mean postoperative follow-up time.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies (4108 patients) were included. Longer postsurgical follow-up time was significantly positively associated with a higher proportion of PTOA development. The model-estimated proportion of PTOA (95% CI) at 5, 10, and 20 years after surgery was 11.3% (6.4%-19.1%), 20.6% (14.9%-27.7%), and 51.6% (29.1%-73.5%), respectively. Increased chronicity of the ACL tear before surgery and increased patient age were also associated with a higher likelihood of PTOA development.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of osteoarthritis after an ACL reconstruction significantly increased with time. Longer chronicity of ACL tear and older age at the time of surgery were significantly positively correlated with the development of osteoarthritis. A timely referral and treatment of symptomatic patients are vital to diminish the occurrence of PTOA.

Cross Pin Versus Interference Screw for Femoral Graft Fixation in Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of a cross pin and interference screw for femoral graft fixation in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and provide an appropriate reference for orthopaedic surgeons.

METHODS

The Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases were searched in March 2016, and comparative trials using cross-pin and interference screw devices for femoral graft fixation in primary hamstring ACLR with clinical outcome measurements were included in the review. Trials with no controlled groups, hybrid fixation, no clinical outcomes, or follow-up of less than 1 year were excluded. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane Back Review Group 12-item scale. Abstracted data were pooled with fixed or random effects depending on the detected heterogeneity. The outcome measures were the scoring system and physical examination findings, including the Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score or grade, Tegner score, negative Lachman test, negative pivot-shift test, and instrumented side-to-side anterior-posterior laxity difference.

RESULTS

All the studies reviewed were of prospective design. Within the cross-pin group, patients who underwent hamstring ACLR showed a significantly smaller instrumented side-to-side anterior-posterior laxity difference when compared with interference screw fixation (weighted mean difference, 0.38 mm [95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.67 mm]; P = .01), whereas the results of a negative Lachman test and negative pivot-shift test were comparable. Outcomes regarding the scoring system did not reach a significant difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The statistically decreased instrumented side-to-side anterior-posterior laxity difference achieved by cross-pin transfixation appears to be of limited clinical significance when compared with interference screw fixation in primary hamstring ACLR. Clinically, the performance of cross-pin devices did not show a significant advantage over that of the interference screw for femoral graft fixation in hamstring ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

Certain factors under the control of the surgeon at the time of revision surgery can both negatively and positively affect outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline demographics, intraoperative surgical technique and joint disorders, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating scale) completed before surgery. Patients were followed up for 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, and a variety of previous and current surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 1205 patients (697 male [58%]) met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled. The median age was 26 years, and the median time since their last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (989/1205). Both previous and current surgical factors were found to be significant contributors toward poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years. Having undergone previous arthrotomy (nonarthroscopic open approach) for ACL reconstruction compared with the 1-incision technique resulted in significantly poorer outcomes for the 2-year IKDC ( P = .037; odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.05-5.88) and KOOS pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life (QOL) subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 2.38-4.35; 95% CI, 1.03-10.00). The use of a metal interference screw for current femoral fixation resulted in significantly better outcomes for the 2-year KOOS symptoms, pain, and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 1.70-1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.33) as well as WOMAC stiffness subscale ( P = .041; OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.02-3.03). Not performing notchplasty at revision significantly improved 2-year outcomes for the IKDC ( P = .013; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.40-1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93), and WOMAC stiffness and ADL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.41-1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05). Factors before revision ACL reconstruction that increased the risk of poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years included lower baseline outcome scores, a lower Marx activity score at the time of revision, a higher BMI, female sex, and a shorter time since the patient's last ACL reconstruction. Prior femoral fixation, prior femoral tunnel aperture position, and knee flexion angle at the time of revision graft fixation were not found to affect 2-year outcomes in this revision cohort.

CONCLUSION

There are certain surgical variables that the physician can control at the time of revision ACL reconstruction that can modify clinical outcomes at 2 years. Whenever possible, opting for an anteromedial portal or transtibial surgical exposure, choosing a metal interference screw for femoral fixation, and not performing notchplasty are associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes.

Suspensory Versus Aperture Fixation of a Quadrupled Hamstring Tendon Autograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hamstring grafts have become a popular choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction; however, the most effective means of fixation of these soft tissue grafts is unknown.

PURPOSE

To determine whether suspensory or aperture fixation of hamstring tendon autografts provides better stability and clinical outcomes in ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search of studies reporting single-bundle ACL reconstructions using 4-stranded hamstring tendon autografts with aperture or suspensory fixation with a minimum 24-month follow-up was conducted. Stability and clinical outcomes were compared for aperture versus suspensory fixation. Knee stability was measured with the Lachman or pivot-shift test or KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference (SSD), and outcomes were determined with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner, and Lysholm scores as well as graft failures. A random-effects model with a pooled estimate for the between-study variance was used to estimate proportions or means for each outcome and its corresponding 95% CI.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies were included, of which 20 utilized suspensory fixation techniques and 21 utilized aperture fixation techniques. A >3-mm SSD was seen more often in the aperture group than the suspensory group, which was statistically significant ( P < .0001), but there was no significant difference between groups for a >5-mm SSD ( P = .53). The aperture group demonstrated significantly more graft ruptures than did the suspensory group ( P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in Lachman grade 0 ( P = .76), grade 1 ( P = .89), and grade 2 ( P = .55) or pivot-shift grade 0 ( P = .72), grade 1 ( P = .97), and grade 2 ( P = .28). There was no statistically significant difference in mean continuous IKDC ( P = .80), Tegner ( P = .34), or Lysholm ( P = .84) scores.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated improved overall arthrometric stability and fewer graft ruptures using suspensory fixation compared with aperture fixation of a quadrupled hamstring tendon autograft in ACL reconstruction. There were no differences in IKDC, Lysholm, Lachman, and pivot-shift outcomes between suspensory and aperture fixation.

Reverse Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Fixation: A Biomechanical Comparison Study of Tibial Cross-Pin and Femoral Interference Screw Fixation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the biomechanical performance of tibial cross-pin (TCP) fixation relative to femoral cross-pin (FCP), femoral interference screw (FIS), and tibial interference screw (TIS) fixation.

METHODS

We randomized 40 porcine specimens (20 tibias and 20 femurs) to TIS fixation (group 1, n = 10), FIS fixation (group 2, n = 10), TCP fixation (group 3, n = 10), or FCP fixation (group 4, n = 10) and performed biomechanical testing to compare ultimate load, stiffness, yield load, cyclic displacement, and load at 5-mm displacement. We performed cross-pin fixation of the looped end and interference screw fixation of the free ends of 9-mm-diameter bovine extensor digitorum communis tendon grafts. Graft fixation constructs were cyclically loaded and then loaded to failure in line with the tunnels.

RESULTS

Regarding yield load, FIS was superior to TIS (704 ± 125 N vs 504 ± 118 N, P = .002), TCP was superior to TIS (1,449 ± 265 N vs 504 ± 118 N, P < .001), and TCP was superior to FCP (1,449 ± 265 N vs 792 ± 397 N, P < .001). Cyclic displacement for FCP was superior to TCP. Cyclic displacement for TIS versus FIS showed no statistically significant difference (2.5 ± 1.0 mm vs 2.2 ± 0.6 mm, P = .298). Interference screw fixation consistently failed by graft slippage, whereas TCP fixation failed by tibial bone failure. FCP fixation failed by either femoral bone failure or failure elsewhere in the testing apparatus.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding yield load, TCP fixation performed biomechanically superior to the clinically proven FCP at time zero. Because TIS fixation shows the lowest yield strength, it represents the weak link, and combined TCP-FIS fixation theoretically would be biomechanically superior relative to combined FCP-TIS fixation with regard to yield load. Cyclic displacement showed a small difference in favor of FCP over TCP fixation and no difference between TIS and FIS.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Time-zero biomechanics of TCP fixation paired with FIS fixation show that this method of fixation can be considered a potential alternative to current practice and may pose clinical benefits in different clinical scenarios of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Practice Guidelines for the Management of Multiligamentous Injuries of the Knee

BACKGROUND

Multiligamentous injuries of knee remain a gray area as far as guidelines for management are concerned due to absence of large-scale, prospective controlled trials. This article reviews the recent evidence-based literature and trends in treatment of multiligamentous injuries and establishes the needful protocol, keeping in view the current concepts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers individually assessed the available data indexed on PubMed and Medline and compiled data on incidence, surgical versus nonsurgical treatment, timing of surgery, and repair versus reconstruction of multiligamentous injury.

RESULTS

Evolving trends do not clearly describe treatment, but most studies have shown increasing inclination toward an early, staged/single surgical procedure for multiligamentous injuries involving cruciate and collateral ligaments. Medial complex injuries have shown better results with conservative treatment with surgical reconstruction of concomitant injuries.

CONCLUSION

Multiligamentous injury still remains a gray area due to unavailability of a formal guideline to treatment in the absence of large-scale, blinded prospective controlled trials. Any in multiligamentous injuries any intervention needs to be individualized by the presence of any life- or limb-threatening complication. The risks and guarded prognosis with both surgical and non-surgical modalities of treatment should be explained to patient and relations.

[The time-related risk for knee osteoarthritis after ACL injury. Results from a systematic review]

AIM

The aim of this review was to evaluate the time-related risk for knee osteoarthritis in patients after ACL injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary search was carried out in different medical databases with the deadline 12.01.2014. The search strategy for the evaluation was [ACL] AND [osteoarthritis] including "all fields". All 1656 title/abstracts were reviewed by two independent researchers who selected 140 papers for full text review. Finally, a total of 21 relevant publications were identified for inclusion in this current paper.

RESULTS

The incidence of knee osteoarthritis rises significantly over time. Two years after injury it was 6.9%, after 5 years 32.2%, after 7 years 36.3%, and after 10 years 79.6%. At the same time, the crude relative risk of OA rises as the time interval since injury increases. The relative risk of OA has already doubled by 2 years after ACL injury). By 7 years it has increased fivefold and compared with OA status at the time of injury it is still increasing significantly after 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACL injury is a significant risk factor for the development of early-onset secondary knee osteoarthritis. Within 5 years of the injury the knee shows clear signs of osteoarthritis on MRI. However, these lesions are often not associated with any clinical signs. Knee osteoarthritis as a severe disease starts 8 years or later after the injury, when it requires treatment.

Posterior Wall Blowout in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Review of Anatomic and Surgical Considerations

Violation of the posterior femoral cortex, commonly referred to as posterior wall blowout, can be a devastating intraoperative complication in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and lead to loss of graft fixation or early graft failure. If cortical blowout occurs despite careful planning and adherence to proper surgical technique, a thorough knowledge of the anatomy and alternative fixation techniques is imperative to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This article highlights anatomic considerations for femoral tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction and techniques for avoidance and salvage of a posterior wall blowout.