Background: Although arthroscopic screw fixation and suture fixation are mainstream interventions for displaced anterior cruciate ligament avulsion fractures of the tibia, the differences in clinical outcomes between them remain inconclusive. Purpose: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the clinical and functional outcomes between arthroscopic screw fixation and suture fixation for tibial avulsion fractures. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Inclusion criteria were English-language articles that compared functional outcomes after screw fixation versus suture fixation for tibial avulsion fractures and had at least 1-year follow-up. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed statistically using the Mantel-Haenszel method and variance-weighted means. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Of 1395 articles initially identified, we included 5 studies with 184 patients (91 patients with screw fixations and 93 patients with suture fixations). The pooled results indicated similar postoperative outcomes for screw fixation and suture fixation: Lysholm score (mean difference [MD], −0.32 [95% CI, −6.08 to 5.44]; P = .91), proportion of International Knee Documentation Committee score grade A (74% vs 74%; RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.10-3.95]; P = .63), Tegner score (MD, 0.10 [95% CI: −1.73 to 1.92]; P = .92), and Lachman test results (stable knee joint, 82% vs 82%; RR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.85-1.16; P = .90). Patients in the screw fixation group had a significantly higher overall subsequent surgery rate (46% vs 19%; RR, 2.33; 95% CI,1.51-3.60; P = .0001) and implant removal rate (44% vs 3%; RR, 8.52; 95% CI, 3.58-20.29; P < .00001) compared with those in the suture fixation group. Nonimplant-related subsequent surgery rates were similar for the 2 groups. Conclusion: The findings indicated a higher risk of subsequent surgery (RR, 2.33) and implant removal (RR, 8.52) after screw fixation when compared with suture fixation for tibial avulsion fractures. However, there were no significant differences in clinical outcome scores between the 2 techniques.

Purpose To investigate the relationship between the lateral femoral notch sign as well as the coronal lateral collateral ligament (LCL) sign and anterior tibial translation using the GNRB arthrometer in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Methods Forty-six patients with ACL injuries were retrospectively included from May 2020 to February 2022; four patients were excluded due to incomplete data. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were reviewed for the lateral femoral notch sign and the coronal LCL sign. The GNRB arthrometer was used to evaluate the dynamic anterior tibial translation of the knee, and the side-to-side differences (SSDs) in tibial translation between the injured knee and healthy knee were calculated at different force levels. Two types of slopes for displacement-force curves were acquired. Results Six patients (14.3%) had the positive lateral femoral notch sign (notch depth > 2.0 mm), and 14 patients (33.3%) had the positive coronal LCL sign. The SSD of the anterior tibial translations under different loads as well as the slopes of displacement-force curves were the same in the positive and negative notch sign groups (p all > 0.05) and between the positive and negative coronal LCL sign groups (p all > 0.05). Meanwhile, the measured notch depth and notch length were also not significantly correlated with the anterior tibial translation SSD in the GNRB. Conclusion The presence of the lateral femoral notch sign and the coronal LCL sign did not indicate greater dynamic tibial laxity as measured using the GNRB.