Comparative Study after Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Endobutton and Rigidfix: A Clinical Trial Study

Comparison of Cross-Pin Versus Cortical Button Femoral Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstrings Autograft: A Long-Term Clinical Study and Review of the Literature

Background Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common operative procedure and many options regarding the type of the selected graft and fixation technique have been described to date. Although many studies have addressed the issue of the optimal femoral fixation device during ACLR with a hamstring tendon (HT) autograft, no clear evidence to indicate one technique over another has been found. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term postoperative outcomes and complication rates between transfemoral Cross-pin (CP) and Endobutton-Cortical Button (CB) fixation techniques in patients undergoing ACLR with an HT autograft. Methods One hundred and seven consecutive patients underwent ACLR by using a quadruple HT autograft that was stabilized with either a CP (CP Group: 52 patients) or a CB (CB Group: 55 patients) fixation technique. The Lachman test (LT), the Pivot-shift test (PST), the side-to-side difference in anterior translation of the tibia, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the Lysholm knee scoring systems were evaluated before surgery and during long-term follow up. The femoral and tibial tunnel diameter was measured in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs after surgery and at the final follow-up. A review of the literature was also carried out to identify any differences between both techniques. Results Study groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics. The mean follow-up was 10.4 ± 1.3 and 10.6 ± 1.3 years in the CP and CB Groups, respectively (p = 0.47). In the CP Group, improvements after surgery in LT and PST from grade 2 (n=34) or 3 (n=18) to grade 0 (n = 41) or 1 (n = 11) and from grade 2 (n=36) or 3 (n = 16) to grade 0 (n = 44) or 1 (n = 8), respectively, were observed. In the CB Group, similar improvements in LT and PST scores from grade 2 (n = 40) or 3 (n = 15) to grade 0 (n = 46) or 1 (n = 9) and from grade 2 (n = 41) or 3 (n = 14) to grade 0 (n = 47) or 1 (n = 8), respectively, were observed. However, no differences between the groups (p = 0.53 for LT and p = 0.90 for PST) were noted. The mean Lysholm scores were 89.7 ± 6.8 and 90.2 ± 7.2 in the CP and CB groups, respectively (p = 0.59). Side-to-side difference improved from 9.1 ± 2.8 to 1.7 ± 1.5 mm and from 8.6 ± 2.5 to 1.6 ± 1.4 mm in the CP and CB groups, respectively (p = 0.89 between groups). According to IKDC grades, 92.1% and 91.4% of knees in the CP and CB groups, respectively were reported to be Grade A (Normal) or B (Nearly Normal) with a p = 0.7. Femoral and tibial tunnel widening was found in the last follow-up in both groups. However, there was no difference in the degree of tunnel widening among the two techniques. With respect to LT, PST, anterior drawer test, and IKDC score, none of the 15 published comparative studies demonstrated any significant differences between the two techniques and only one study detected a difference regarding the Lysholm score in favor of CP fixation. Conclusion In the long term, both CB and CP femoral stabilization techniques were shown to be associated with similar functional outcomes and low complication rates. Further large multicenter random clinical trials are still required to identify the most effective method of femoral fixation for HT autograft during ACLR surgery.

The changing trends of the knee function after anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments reconstruction with all-inside arthroscopy technique

We aimed to summarize the effectiveness and changing trends of reconstruction for the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries using all-inside arthroscope technique. Between May 2013 and May 2019, 29 patients with ACL and PCL ligaments rupture were included. All the patients were male, with a mean age of 25.2±2.9 years. The mean follow-up period was 2.4±0.7 years (Range, 2-4 years). Reconstruction surgery of the ACL and PCL ligaments was performed by using autologous hamstring tendon with all-inside arthroscopy technique. The anterior and posterior drawer test, Lachman test, Pivot-shift test, stress test, IKDC score, Lysholm score, Tenger score were analyzed clinically. At the last follow-up, the symptoms were improved significantly, the anterior drawer test was normal and 1 degree in 96.6%, posterior drawer test in 89.7%, pivot shift test in 96.6%, Lachman test in 93.1%, and stress test in 93.3%, the stability was improved significant(P<0.05). The IKDC-2000 standard score was normal and near normal in 96.6%. The IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tenger scores results at the last follow-up were significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05). The changing trends of function evaluation score in the first six months were most obviously better, especially in the third month. All-inside arthroscopy technique is an effective procedure for the ACL and PCL ligaments injuries, and the first six months (especially the third month) after the reconstruction is the key period for a successful recovery. However, there was still a significant improvement at the later stage of rehabilitation.

Persistent knee extension deficits are common after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

Knee extension deficits complicate recovery from ACL injury and reconstruction; however, the incidence of knee extension loss is not well defined. The aim of this review was to identify the incidence of loss of extension (LOE) following ACL rupture and reconstruction, explore the definitions of knee extension deficits reported and identify prognostic factors affecting LOE incidence.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Cochrane Library and PEDro for studies in publication up to November 2021, with no restrictions on publication year. References were screened and assessed for inclusion using predetermined eligibility criteria. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that quantified knee angle, loss of extension or incidence of extension deficit were included for quality assessment and data extraction. Statistical summaries were generated and meta-analyses performed in two parts to examine: (i) the probability of a datapoint being zero incidence compared to a nonzero incidence and (ii) the relationship between the predictors and nonzero LOE incidence.

RESULTS

A sample of 15,494 studies were retrieved using the search criteria, with 53 studies meeting eligibility criteria. The pooled results from 4991 participants were included for analysis, with 4891 participants who had undergone ACLR. The proportion of included studies judged at an overall low risk of bias was small (7.8%). The observed group and study were the most important predictors for whether a datapoint reported an incidence of extension deficit. Time to follow-up (P < 0.001) and graft type (P = 0.02) were found to have a significant influence on nonzero LOE incidence (%). Covariate adjusted estimates of average LOE indicated 1 in 3 patients presenting with LOE at 12 month follow-up, reducing to 1 in 4 at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This review examined the definitions for the measurement and interpretation of postoperative knee extension and established the trajectory of knee extension deficit after ACL injury and reconstruction. While factors associated with loss of extension were identified, the exact trajectory of knee extension deficits was difficult to infer due to discrepancies in measurement techniques and patient variation. On average, 1 in 3 patients may present with loss of extension of at least 3 degrees at 12-month follow-up, decreasing to 1 in 4 at 2 years. These results may be used by clinicians as an upper threshold for acceptable complication rates following ACLR. Future work should focus on LOE as a clinically relevant complication of ACL injury and treatment with appropriate attention to standardisation of definitions, measurements and better understanding of natural history.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018092295.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

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.