Authors
Department of Orthopedics, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Background: Initial fixation strength is critical for the early post-operative rehabilitation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. However, even the best femoral fixation devices remain controversial. We compared the results of 2 of the femoral fixation techniques,Rigidfix and Transfix.
Materials and Methods: A total of 30 patients with unilateral ACL deficiency were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. In Group A an anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed using Rigidfix technique(Mitek, Norwood,MA), Group B were treated by a single bundle using Transfix technique(Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). For tibial fixation, a bioabsorbable Intrafix interference screw was used for all the groups and the graft was fashioned from the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons in all patients. The patients were subjected to a clinical evaluation, with assessment of the anterior drawer, Lachman's and the pivot-shift tests. They also completed the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score.
Results: At a mean of 14 months (12-17) followup there were no significant differences concerning time between injury and range of movement between the 2 groups. However, the Rigidfix group showed significantly better results for the subjective assessment of knee function ( P = 0.002). The Lachman, anterior drawer, and pivot-shift tests also showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The IKDC scale showed no significant difference among the groups ( P < 0.001).There was no difference regarding duration of operation and cost of the operation between the 2 groups.On clinical evaluation there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. However, regardless of the technique, all knees were improved by ACL reconstruction compared with their preoperative status.
Conclusion: Both techniques can be used for reconstruction of ACL. Other factors, such as psychic profile of the patients should be considered for surgery planning.
Keywords
1. | Gianotti SM, Marshall SW, Hume PA, Bunt L. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: A national population-based study. J Sci Med Sport 2009;12:622-7. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
2. | Graham SM, Parker RD. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon grafts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;402:64-75. [PUBMED] |
3. | Gabriel MT, Wong EK, Wood SL, Yagi M, Debski RE. Distribution of in situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament in response to rotatory loads. J Orthop Res 2004;22:85-9. |
4. | Woo SL, Kanamori A, Zeminski J. The effectiveness of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstring and patellar tendon: A cadaveric study comparing anterior tibial and rotational loads. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A:907-14. |
5. | Adachi N, Ochi M, Uchio Y, Iwasa J, Kuriwaka M, Ito Y. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Single-versus double multistranded hamstring tendons. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:515-20. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
6. | Cha PS, Brucker PU, West RV, Zelle BA, Yagi M, Kurosaka M, et al. Arthroscopic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: An anatomic approach. Arthroscopy 2005;21:1275. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
7. | Hamada M, Shino K, Horibe S. Single- versus bi-socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autogenous multiple stranded hamstring tendons with endobutton femoral fixation: A prospective study. Arthroscopy 2001;17:801-7. |
8. | Hara K, Kubo T, Suginoshita T, Shimizu C, Hirasawa T. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using a double bundle. Arthroscopy 2000;16:860-4. |
9. | Marcacci M, Molgota AP, Zaffaginini S. Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings. Arthroscopy 2003;19:536-40. |
10. | Muneta T, Sekiya I, Yagishia K. Two bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using semitendinosus tendon with Endobuttons: Operative technique and preliminary results. Arthroscopy 1999;15:618-24. |
11. | Pinczewski LA, Deehan DJ, Salman LJ, Russell VJ, Clingeletter A. A five year comparison of patellar tendon versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 2002;30:523-36. |
12. | Ahmad CS, Gardner TR, Groh M, Arnouk J, Levine WN. Mechanical properties of soft tissue femoral fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:635-40. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
13. | Kousa P, Jarvinen TL, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Jarvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part I: Femoral site. Am J Sports Med 2003;31:174-81. |
14. | Zantop T, Weimann A, Rummler M, Hassenpflug J, Petersen W. Initial fixation strength of two bioabsorbable pins for the fixation of hamstring grafts compared to interference screw fixation: Single cycle and cyclic loading. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:641-9. |
15. | Harilainen A, Sandelin J. A Prospective Comparison of 3 Hamstring ACL Fixation Devices-Rigidfix, BioScrew, and Intrafix-Randomized Into 4 Groups With 2 Years of Follow-Up. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:699-706. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
16. | Wu JL, Yeh TT, Shen HC, Cheng CK, Lee CH. Mechanical comparison of biodegradable femoral fixation devices for hamstring tendon graft: A biomechanical study in a porcine model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2009;24:435-40. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
17. | Halewood C, Hirschmann MT, Newman S, Hleihil J, Chaimski G, Amis AA. The fixation strength of a novel ACL soft-tissue graft fixation device compared with conventional interference screws: A biomechanical study in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010;19:559-67. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
18. | Seo SS, Kim CW, Nam TS, Choi SY. ACL Reconstruction with Autologous Hamstring Tendon: Comparison of Short Term Clinical Results between Rigid-fix and PINN-ACL Cross Pin. Knee Surg Relat Res 2011;23:208-12. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |