Functional Outcome Following Arthroscopic ACL Reconstruction with Rigid Fix: A Retrospective Observational Study

Document Type: RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

2 Sparsh Hospitals, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

3 Adichunchungiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellur, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Abstract

 
Background: No uniform consensus exists to decide type of fixation for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Hypothsis: There is similar functional outcome after rigid fix compared to other methods of fixation which has been published.
Study design: Retrospective observational study.
Methods: A total of 50 patients underwent arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons using femoral Rigid fix cross-pin and interference screw tibial fixation. The evaluation methods were clinical examination, IKDC scores, Lysholm and pre injury and post reconstruction Tegner score. Patients were followed up from minimum of 6 months to 4 year seven months.
Results: C In our study of sample size 50 we found that mean age of patients was 30.8 Years with male preponderance. Mean post operative IKDC and Lysholm score has been 75.6 and 84.4 respectively.Mean Tegner pre-injury score and post reconstruction score has been 5.4 and 4.26 .Box plot comparison of pre injury and post operativeTegner score reveals a statistically significant difference with respect to paired t test P
Conclusions: Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with femoral rigid fix cross pins and tibial interference screws results in comparable short term to midterm functional results compared to other types of fixation

Keywords


  1. Fu FH ,Bennet CH,Latterman C and MA CB. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Part 1: Biology and  biomechanics of reconstruction.Current concepts. Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27(6):821-30.
  2. Lyman S, Koulouvaris P, Sherman S, Do H, Mandl LA, Marx RG. Epidemiology of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: trends, readmissions, and subsequent knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(10):2321-8.
  3. Frank CB, Jackson DW. Current concepts review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998; 79(10);1556-75
  4. Johnson RJ, Beynnon BD, Nicholas CE, Renstrom PA. The treatment of injuries to antrerior cruciate ligament current concepts review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992; 74(1);140-51
  5. Eajazi A, Madadi F, Madadi F, Boreiri M. Comparison of Different Methods of Femoral Fixation Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Acta Medica Iranica. 2013; 51(7):444-8.
  6. Studler U, White LM, Naraghi AM, Tomlinson G, Kunz M, Kahn G. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by using bioabsorbable femoral cross pins: MR imaging findings at follow-up and comparison with clinical findings. Radiology. 2010; 255(1):108-16.
  7. Choi NH, Lee JH, Victoroff BN. Do broken cross-pins compromise stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendons?.Arthroscopy. 2007; 23(12):1334-40.
  8. Asik M, Sen C, Tuncay I, Erdil M, Avci C, Taser OF. Comparison between Rigidfix and bio-Transfix The mid- to long-term results of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons using Transfix technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15(8):965-72.
  9. Seo SS, Kim CW, Nam TS, Choi SY. ACL Reconstruction with Autologous Hamstring Tendon: Comparison of Short Term Clinical Results between Rigid-i x and PINN-ACL Cross Pin. Korea Knee Surg Relat Res. 2011;23(4):208-12
  10. Musil D, Sadovský P, Stehlík J.BTB allograft for revision surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament - part 2. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2005;72(5):297-303.
  11. Monaco E, Labianca L, Speranza A, Agrò AM, Camillieri G, D’Arrigo C, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of different anterior cruciate ligament fixation techniques for hamstring graft. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(1):125-31.