Bioabsorbable interference screw versus bioabsorbable cross pins: influence of femoral graft fixation on the clinical outcome after ACL reconstruction

被引:19
|
作者
Frosch, Stephan [1 ]
Rittstieg, Anne [1 ]
Balcarek, Peter [1 ]
Walde, Tim Alexander [1 ]
Schuettrumpf, Jan P. [1 ]
Wachowski, Martin M. [1 ]
Stuermer, Klaus M. [1 ]
Frosch, Karl-Heinz [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Gottingen, Dept Trauma Surg Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Gottingen, Germany
[2] Asklepios Clin St Georg, Dept Trauma & Reconstruct Surg, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
Milagro screw; Interference screw; Cross pins; ACL reconstruction; Postoperative outcome; CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION; PULLOUT STRENGTH; AUTOGRAFTS; INJURIES; TITANIUM;
D O I
10.1007/s00167-011-1875-4
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and differences in anterior-posterior laxity of ACL reconstruction using a bioabsorbable interference screw for femoral graft fixation when compared to femoral bioabsorbable cross pin fixation. Clinical outcome was evaluated among 59 patients 1 year after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with hamstrings graft in a prospective, non-randomised study. In 31 cases, femoral fixation of the graft was performed using a bioabsorbable interference screw. In 28 cases, two bioabsorbable cross pins were used for femoral fixation. Patients were evaluated using Tegner, Lysholm and Marshall scores, the visual analogue scale for pain and KT-1000 arthrometer measurement. No significant difference (P a parts per thousand yen 0.05) was observed at follow-up for the knee scores. The average Tegner score was 5.83 points (+/- 2.00) for the interference screw fixation and 5.83 points (+/- 1.24) for the cross pin fixation; the average Lysholm score was 93.58 (+/- 5.79) to 92.72 (+/- 6.34) points; and the average Marshall score 46.72 (+/- 2.4) to 47.30 (+/- 2.35) points. No significant difference was found for the visual analogue scale for pain. KT-1000 arthrometer measurement revealed a significant (P < 0.05) difference in the mean side-to-side anterior translation at all applied forces. At 67 N, the mean difference was 1.53 mm (+/- 1.24) in the interference screw group and 0.47 mm (+/- 1.18) in the cross pin group (P < 0.05). At 89 N, the mean differences were 1.85 mm (+/- 1.29) versus 0.59 mm (+/- 1.59), respectively, (P < 0.05), and maximum manual displacements were 2.02 mm (+/- 1.26) versus 1.22 mm (1.18; P < 0.05). In ACL reconstruction with hamstrings graft, similar clinical results are obtained for the use of bioabsorbable cross pins when compared to bioabsorbable interference screws for femoral fixation. Cross pin fixation was superior with regard to the anteroposterior laxity as measured with KT-1000.
引用
收藏
页码:2251 / 2256
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Graft osteolysis and recurrent instability after the Latarjet procedure performed with bioabsorbable screw fixation
    Balestro, Jean-Christian
    Young, Allan
    Maccioni, Cristobal
    Walch, Gilles
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2015, 24 (05) : 711 - 718
  • [32] Fixation of Unstable Femoral Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans Lesions with Bioabsorbable Pins-Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes
    Kreher, Jannes
    Tross, Anna-K
    Wuennemann, Felix
    Berrsche, Gregor
    Rehnitz, Christoph
    Barie, Alexander
    Schmitt, Holger
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [33] Transcutaneous migration of a tibial bioabsorbable interference screw after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
    Sassmannshausen, G
    Caff, CF
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2003, 19 (09):
  • [34] Bioabsorbable Versus Metallic Interference Screw Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Shen, Chao
    Jiang, Sheng-Dan
    Jiang, Lei-Sheng
    Dai, Li-Yang
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2010, 26 (05): : 705 - 713
  • [35] Hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparison of bioabsorbable interference screw and EndoButton-post fixation
    Ma, CB
    Francis, K
    Towers, J
    Irrgang, J
    Fu, FH
    Harner, CH
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2004, 20 (02): : 122 - 128
  • [36] Quadrupled semitendinosus-gracilis autograft fixation in the femoral tunnel: A comparison between a metal and a bioabsorbable interference screw
    Caborn, DNM
    Coen, M
    Neef, R
    Hamilton, D
    Nyland, J
    Johnson, DL
    ARTHROSCOPY, 1998, 14 (03): : 241 - 245
  • [37] Influence of thread design on bioabsorbable interference screw insertion torque during retrograde fixation of a soft-tissue graft in synthetic bone
    Wozniak, TD
    Kocabey, Y
    Klein, S
    Nyland, J
    Caborn, DNM
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2005, 21 (07): : 815 - 819
  • [38] Two ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction methods: The docking technique versus bioabsorbable interference screw fixation - A biomechanical evaluation with cyclic loading
    McAdams, Timothy R.
    Lee, Arthur T.
    Centeno, Joseph
    Giori, Nicholas J.
    Lindsey, Derek P.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2007, 16 (02) : 224 - 228
  • [39] Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation
    Jaervelae, Timo
    Moisala, Anna-Stina
    Sihvonen, Raine
    Jaervelae, Sally
    Kannus, Pekka
    Jaervinen, Markku
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2008, 36 (02): : 290 - 297
  • [40] Femoral and Tibial Tunnel Diameter and Bioabsorbable Screw Findings After Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction in 5-Year Clinical and MRI Follow-up
    Kiekara, Tommi
    Paakkala, Antti
    Suomalainen, Piia
    Huhtala, Heini
    Jarvela, Timo
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2017, 5 (02)