Evaluation and comparison of clinical results of femoral fixation devices in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Aydın, Deniz; Özcan, Mert

doi:10.1016/j.knee.2015.04.004

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies reported no significant difference in anteroposterior stability and clinical scores among femoral fixation devices, such as cortical suspensory fixation, aperture interference screws, and trans-femoral fixation devices. 21 22) Boyle et al 23) recently reported their clinical results comparing fixed- and adjustable-length loop devices; no differences in postoperative laxity or graft failure rates were evident at the 2-year follow-up. During early postoperative rehabilitation period, graft relaxation and graft slippage could occur by lengthening of the fixation device.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Results of Outside-in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Fixed- and Adjustable-Length Loop Cortical Fixation

Ahn

Ko²,

Lee

et al. 2018

Clin Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCortical suspensory femoral fixation is commonly performed for graft fixation to the femur in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring tendons. The purpose of this study was to compare graft healing in the femoral tunnel, implant-related failure, and clinical results between fixed- and adjustable-length loop devices in outside-in ACL reconstruction.MethodsA total of 109 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using the outside-in technique from December 2010 to July 2014 were included. For femoral graft fixation, a fixed-length loop device was used in 48 patients (fixed-loop group) and an adjustable-length loop device was used in 61 patients (adjustable-loop group). For evaluation of graft healing in the femoral tunnel, magnetic resonance imaging was performed at postoperative 6 months and the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the tendon graft and tendon-bone interface in the femoral bone tunnel were evaluated. The presence of synovial fluid was evaluated to determine loop lengthening at the femoral tunnel exit. Clinical results assessed using International Knee Documentation Committee score, Tegner-Lysholm Knee Scoring scale, and knee instability tests were compared between groups.ResultsThe SNRs of the tendon graft and tendon-bone interface were not statistically different between groups. The presence of synovial fluid at the femoral exit showed no statistical difference between groups. Clinical results were not significantly different between groups.ConclusionsThe adjustable-length loop device provided comparable graft healing, implant-related failure, and clinical results with the fixed-length loop device, allowing adaptation of the graft to the different tunnel lengths. Therefore, it could be effectively used with an adjustment according to the femoral tunnel length.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Results of Outside-in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Fixed- and Adjustable-Length Loop Cortical Fixation

Ahn

Ko²,

Lee

et al. 2018

Clin Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study conducted by Aydın et al, anterior drawer tests, Lachman tests, and scores from the IKDC and Lysholm tests were compared after Endobutton, Transfix and Aperfix fixation in ACL surgery. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in the evaluated parameters 27 . One other limitation of our study was that it consisted of a limited cohort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Outcomes of isokinetic tests and functional assessment of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Transtibial versus single anatomic femoral tunnel technique

Başdelioğlu¹,

Meriç²,

Pündük³

et al. 2019

Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of the transtibial and anatomical femoral single tunnel surgical techniques in ACL reconstruction. Methods A total of 30 patients, with 16 patients (15 males and 1 female; mean age: 27.2 ± 7.04) with anatomical femoral single-tunnel technique (AFT) and 14 (12 males and 2 females; mean age: 29.4 ± 8.82) with transtibial technique (TT) were included into the study. All patients were evaluated with isokinetic tests at an angular velocity of 60°/s and 180°/s and the IKDC and Lysholm tests were performed preoperatively and in third, sixth, and 12th months postoperatively. The results were compared between the groups. The mean follow-up time was 17.1 ± 6.48 months. Results Postoperative third month changes in extension parameters of peak torque (AFT: −93.286, TT: −61.500), peak work (AFT: −77.071, TT: −47.500), peak torque ext/kg (AFT: −1.182, TT: −0.773), peak work ext/kg (AFT: −0.982, TT: −0.604), peak work (AFT: −55.143 TT: −33.063) at an angular velocity of 60°/s and postoperative third month change in extension parameter of peak power (AFT: −86.786 TT: −54.875) at an angular velocity of 180°/s were found to be better in the transtibial group ( p < 0.05) and postoperative sixth month peak torque (AFT: 1.429, TT: −5.688) value at an angular velocity of 60°/s was found to be less in the anatomical femoral single-tunnel group ( p < 0.05). The IKDC (AFT: 94.671, TT: 90.025) ( p < 0.05) and Lysholm (AFT: 96.714, TT: 92.375) ( p < 0.05) scores of the anatomical femoral single-tunnel group were better than the transtibial group regarding to the postoperative final follow-up. There are positive intermediate correlations between preoperative IKDC and Lysholm scores with preoperative and postoperative some isokinetic test ratio (r = 0.539; p = 0.031), and preoperative peak power extension (r = 0.541; p = 0.030) at the both angular velocity of 60°/s and 180°/s in the transtibial group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regards to the Lachman, anterior drawer and pivot shift tests ( p < 0.05). Conclusion There were differences in terms of isokinetic parameters in early outcomes but there was no statistical difference between isokinetic parameters at the end of 1st year between two groups. There were some correlations between IKDC and Lysholm scores with some isokinetic parameters. Level of Evidence Level III, Therapeutic Study.

show abstract

“…The proximal articular surface fixation devices include screws, transverse nails such as Rigidfix, cross nails such as TransFix, Biotransfix; [22–24] fixing methods away from the articular surface are portal nails and suspension fixation such as Endobutton. [25,26] Recently, many traditional meta-analyses compared the efficacy, safety, adverse reactions and long-term complications of different fixation devices for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction, and some fixtures showed good effect. [27–29] However, which individual fixation device or combined fixation device is the best choice for ACL reconstruction remains unclear due to lacking multiple treatment comparisons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of efficacy and safety of different fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Jin

Yu²,

Wei

et al. 2019

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is a common ligament injury to the knee joint, and often lead to limited function, osteoarthritis after knee trauma, secondary damage to meniscus and cartilage, and impaired quality of life. ACL reconstruction is the gold standard surgical treatment for ACL injury, and ligament fixation after reconstruction is the key factor of ACL reconstruction success. However, the optimal fixation device for ACL reconstruction remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different fixation devices and to find the best fixation device for ACL reconstruction. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Chinese Biomedicine Literature will be searched to identify relevant studies from inception to December 2018. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different fixation devices fixed on the femoral side in arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction. Risk of bias assessment of the included RCTs will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) will be performed using R software. Results: The results of this NMA will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Conclusion: This NMA will summarize the direct and indirect evidence to evaluate the effect of different fixation devices for ACL reconstruction.

show abstract

Evaluation and comparison of clinical results of femoral fixation devices in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Cited by 17 publications

References 9 publications

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Results of Outside-in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Fixed- and Adjustable-Length Loop Cortical Fixation

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Results of Outside-in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Fixed- and Adjustable-Length Loop Cortical Fixation

Outcomes of isokinetic tests and functional assessment of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Transtibial versus single anatomic femoral tunnel technique

Comparison of efficacy and safety of different fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About