DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20174664

Clinical comparison between femoral transfixation and bioscrew fixation using hamstring tendon graft for ACL reconstruction

Anil Kumar Mishra, Barun Datta, Varunendra Bahadur Singh, Biraj Gogoi, S. K. Rai, Manoj Kashid

Abstract


Background: One of the popular graft choices for ACL reconstruction have been Hamstrings tendon autograft. There is no consensus on the ideal technique of fixation of hamstrings graft to femoral condyle. Theoretically we hypothesized that transfixation method of hamstrings graft fixation to femoral condyle should be superior to bio-interference screw fixation technique. Hence aim of our study is to compare this two fixation methods of hamstrings autografts clinically.

Methods: 50 clinically and radiologically proven ACL deficient fighting soldiers are selected for the study. In group A; 25 patients underwent ACL reconstruction with Bioscrew using aperture technique on femoral side. Other 25 patients in group B underwent ACL reconstruction with transfixation screw using cortico-cancellous fixation technique on femoral side. In both groups quadrupled semitendinosus autograft is utilized. All the patients evaluated for functional outcome at the end of 6 weeks and at 6 months and at the end of 1 year following the procedure. The subjects are evaluated using the modified Lysholm knee score and knee laxity is measured by Rolimeter.

Results: At 01 year post op. there was no statistically significant difference in both groups in terms of Manual laity tests,Rollimeter laity measurement and Lysholm knee score.The overall satisfactory result (Excellent + Good) in both the groups at 01 year follow up were 98% by Lysholm score.

Conclusions: Transfixation and Bioscrew fixation showed comparable results in manual knee laxity tests, instrumental knee laxity tests using Rolimeter, Lyslohm scores and high patient satisfaction, with almost 96% of patients in both groups returned to their pre-injury levels. 


Keywords


ACL reconstruction, Transfixation, Bioscrew

Full Text:

PDF

References


Kousa P, Jarvinen TL, Vihavianen M, Kannus P, Jarvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstrings tendon graft fixation devices in ACL reconstruction. Part-I: Femoral site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):174-81.

Ma CB, Francis K, Towers J, Irrgang J, Fu FH, Harner CH. Hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of bioabsorbale interference screw and endobutton- post fixation. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(2):122-8.

Weiler A, Hoffmann R, Beil H, Rchm O, Sudkamp N. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel. Part II: histologic analysis after biodegradable interference fit fixation in a model of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in sheep. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:124-35.

Ahmad C, Gardner T, Groh M, Arnouk J, Levine W. Mechanical properties of soft tissues femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction. Am J S Med. 2004;32:635-40.

Rose T, Hepp P, Venus J, Stockmarc C, Josten C, Lilly H. Prospective randomised clinical comparison of femoral transfixation versus Bioscrew fixation in hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction-a preliminary report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(8):730-8.

Brand J, Weiler A, Caborn DN, Brown CH, Jr, Johnson DL. Graft fixation in cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:761–74.

Hoher J, Livesay G, Ma C, Withrow J, Fu F, Woo S. Hamstring graft motion in the femoral bone tunnel when using titanium button/polyester tape fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7:215–9.

Scheffler SU, Sudkamp NP, Gockenjan A, Hoffman RF, Weiler A. Biomechanical comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon graft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: the impact of fixation level and fixation method under cyclic loading. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:304-15.

Hapa O Barber FA. ACL fixation devices. Sports Med Arthroscopy Rev. 2009;17(4):217–23.

Weiler A, Peine R, Pashmineh-Azar A, Abel C, Sudkamp N, Hoffmann R. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel. Part I: biomechanical results after biodegradable interference fit fixation in a mmodel of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in sheep. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:113–23.

Giurea M, Zorilla P, Amis A, Aichroth P. Comparative pull-out and cyclic-loading strength tests of anchorage of hamstring tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:621–5.

Kousa P, J¨arvinen TL, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, J¨arvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part II: tibial site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):182–8.

Milano G, Mulas PD, Ziranu F, Piras S, Manunta A, Fabbriciani C. Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(6):660–8.

Becker R, Voigt D, Starke C, Heymann M, Wilson GA, Nebelung W. Biomechanical properties of quadruple tendon and patellar tendon femoralfixation techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2001;9:337–42.

Capuano L, Hardy P, Longo UG, Denaro V, Maffulli N. No difference in clinical results between femoral transfixation and bio-screw fixation in hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction- A preliminary study. Knee. 2008;15(3):174-9.