Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Incidences of graft rupture are associated with postoperative knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Reports of postoperative knee laxity after ACL reconstruction using different femoral fixation techniques in several studies are controversial.

Purpose:

To compare, via meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the clinical outcomes and postoperative knee laxity of autogenous hamstring ACL reconstruction using cortical button versus cross-pin femoral fixation.

Study Design:

Meta-analysis.

Methods:

This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The online PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to April 1, 2017. The study included only level 1 or 2 RCTs that compared cortical button and cross-pin femoral fixation for ACL reconstruction with hamstring autografts and that reported clinical outcomes or postoperative knee laxity. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. For the meta-analysis, the investigators extracted data on clinical outcomes measured by postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score or Lysholm score and postoperative knee laxity defined as >5 mm side-to-side difference by the arthrometric measurement, Lachman test ≥2+, and pivot-shift test ≥2+. The risk ratio (RR) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed for dichotomous data. Heterogeneity was assessed by I ² tests.

Results:

A total of 6 RCTs with 445 patients were included. Statistical analysis of pooled data showed no significant difference between the cortical button and cross-pin groups on postoperative IKDC score (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-1.02; P = .13; I ² = 4%) and Lysholm score (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .45; I ² = 0%). Postoperative knee laxity was reported in 5 studies, and no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.83-2.68; P = .18; I ² = 37%).

Conclusion:

Cortical button femoral fixation for autogenous hamstring ACL reconstruction had no significant difference in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative knee laxity compared with cross-pin femoral fixation.

Keywords

cortical button cross-pin anterior cruciate ligament meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Balazs

Brelin

Grimm

et al . Hybrid tibia fixation of soft tissue grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:2724-2732.

Bartz

Mossoni

Tyber

et al . A biomechanical comparison of initial fixation strength of 3 different methods of anterior cruciate ligament soft tissue graft tibial fixation: resistance to monotonic and cyclic loading. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:949-954.

Baumfeld

Diduch

Rubino

et al . Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft: a comparison between double cross-pin and suspensory graft fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16:1108-1113.

Bedi

Maak

Musahl

et al . Effect of tibial tunnel position on stability of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: is the tibial tunnel position most important? Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:366-373.

Bedi

Musahl

Steuber

et al . Transtibial versus anteromedial portal reaming in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an anatomic and biomechanical evaluation of surgical technique. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:380-390.

Biuk

Zelic

Rapan

et al . Analysis of biomechanical properties of patellar ligament graft and quadruple hamstring tendon graft. Injury. 2015;46(suppl 6):S14-S17.

Brand

Jr Pienkowski

Steenlage

et al . Interference screw fixation strength of a quadrupled hamstring tendon graft is directly related to bone mineral density and insertion torque. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:705-710.

Cameron

Paessler

et al . Synovial fluid cytokine concentrations as possible prognostic indicators in the ACL-deficient knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1994;2:38-44.

Chechik

Amar

Khashan

et al . An international survey on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practices. Int Orthop. 2013;37:201-206.

10.

Choi

Son

Yoo

et al . Femoral tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bioabsorbable transfix. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:383-387.

11.

Clark

Olsen

Larson

et al . Cross-pin femoral fixation: a new technique for hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the knee. Arthroscopy. 1998;14:258-267.

12.

Colombet

Graveleau

Jambou

. Incorporation of hamstring grafts within the tibial tunnel after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: magnetic resonance imaging of suspensory fixation versus interference screws. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:2838-2845.

13.

Crawford

Waterman

Lubowitz

. Long-term failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:1566-1571.

14.

Eajazi

Madadi

et al . Comparison of different methods of femoral fixation anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Med Iran. 2013;51:444-448.

15.

Ettinger

Werner-Lebeda

Calliess

et al . Femoral interference screw fixation of hamstring and quadriceps tendons for ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:1241-1248.

16.

Fauno

Kaalund

. Tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is influenced by the type of graft fixation used: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1337-1341.

17.

Flanigan

Kanneganti

Quinn

et al . Comparison of ACL fixation devices using cadaveric grafts. J Knee Surg. 2011;24:175-180.

18.

Gadikota

Sim

Hosseini

et al . The relationship between femoral tunnels created by the transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in techniques and the anterior cruciate ligament footprint. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:882-888.

19.

Higgins

Altman

Gotzsche

et al . The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

20.

Hoher

Livesay

et al . Hamstring graft motion in the femoral bone tunnel when using titanium button/polyester tape fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7:215-219.

21.

Hoher

Moller

. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: fact or fiction? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6:231-240.

22.

Howell

Gittins

Gottlieb

et al . The relationship between the angle of the tibial tunnel in the coronal plane and loss of flexion and anterior laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:567-574.

23.

Hussein

van Eck

Cretnik

et al . Prospective randomized clinical evaluation of conventional single-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 281 cases with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:512-520.

24.

Ibrahim

Abdul Ghafar

Marwan

et al . Intratunnel versus extratunnel autologous hamstring double-bundle graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of 2 femoral fixation procedures. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:161-168.

25.

Ibrahim

Hamido

Al Misfer

et al . Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring double bundle graft compared with single bundle procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1310-1315.

26.

Irie

Uchiyama

Iwaso

. Intraarticular inflammatory cytokines in acute anterior cruciate ligament injured knee. Knee. 2003;10:93-96.

27.

Jepsen

Lundberg-Jensen

Faunoe

. Does the position of the femoral tunnel affect the laxity or clinical outcome of the anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee? A clinical, prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:1326-1333.

28.

Kautzner

Kos

Hanus

et al . A comparison of ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon versus hamstring autograft in female patients: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop. 2015;39:125-130.

29.

Klein

Lintner

Downs

et al . The incidence and significance of femoral tunnel widening after quadrupled hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using femoral cross pin fixation. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:470-476.

30.

Kong

Kim

et al . Cross pins versus Endobutton femoral fixation in hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: minimum 4-year follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2012;24:34-39.

31.

Kuskucu

. Comparison of short-term results of bone tunnel enlargement between EndoButton CL and cross-pin fixation systems after chronic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autologous quadrupled hamstring tendons. J Int Med Res. 2008;36:23-30.

32.

L’Insalata

Klatt

et al . Tunnel expansion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;5:234-238.

33.

Larson

Bullock

Pevny

. Comparison of 4 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:972-979.

34.

Loh

Fukuda

Tsuda

et al . Knee stability and graft function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison between 11 o’clock and 10 o’clock femoral tunnel placement. 2002 Richard O’Connor Award paper. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:297-304.

35.

Lopes

Jr de Freitas Spinelli

Leite

et al . Femoral tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using RigidFix compared with extracortical fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:1591-1597.

36.

Francis

Towers

et al . Hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of bioabsorbable interference screw and Endobutton-post fixation. Arthroscopy. 2004;20:122-128.

37.

Mayr

Heinrichs

Eichinger

et al . Biomechanical comparison of 2 anterior cruciate ligament graft preparation techniques for tibial fixation: adjustable-length loop cortical button or interference screw. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:1380-1385.

38.

Milano

Mulas

Ziranu

et al . Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:660-668.

39.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336-341.

40.

Pinczewski

Lyman

Salmon

et al . A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:564-574.

41.

Price

Stoney

Brown

. Prospective randomized comparison of Endobutton versus cross-pin femoral fixation in hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with 2-year follow-up. ANZ J Surg. 2010;80:162-165.

42.

Rahr-Wagner

Thillemann

Pedersen

et al . Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: results from the Danish registry of knee ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:278-284.

43.

Rodeo

Arnoczky

Torzilli

et al . Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel: a biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1795-1803.

44.

Rodriguez

Garcia

Montes

et al . In vitro comparison between cortical and cortico-cancellous femoral suspension devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: implications for mobilization. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:2324-2329.

45.

Sabat

Kundu

Arora

et al . Tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized computed tomography–based study comparing 2 different femoral fixation methods for hamstring graft. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:776-783.

46.

Shen

Chang

Lee

et al . Biomechanical comparison of cross-pin and Endobutton-CL femoral fixation of a flexor tendon graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—a porcine femur-graft-tibia complex study. J Surg Res. 2010;161:282-287.

47.

Song

Eastwood

Gilbody

et al . Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1-115.

48.

Struewer

Ziring

Oberkircher

et al . Isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients aged fifty years: comparison of hamstring graft versus bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. Int Orthop. 2013;37:809-817.

49.

Tompkins

Milewski

Brockmeier

et al . Anatomic femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: use of an accessory medial portal versus traditional transtibial drilling. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:1313-1321.

50.

Tsuda

Ishibashi

Fukuda

et al . Tunnel position and relationship to postoperative knee laxity after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a transtibial technique. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:698-706.

51.

Weber

Delos

Oltean

et al . Tibial and femoral tunnel changes after ACL reconstruction: a prospective 2-year longitudinal MRI study. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:1147-1156.

52.

Zaffagnini

Signorelli

Bonanzinga

et al . Technical variables of ACL surgical reconstruction: effect on post-operative static laxity and clinical implication. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:3496-3506.

53.

Zhang

et al . Comparison of two methods of femoral tunnel preparation in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study. Acta Cir Bras. 2012;27:572-576.

54.

Zhang

Dong

et al . Systematic review of anatomic single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: does femoral tunnel drilling technique matter? Arthroscopy. 2016;32:1887-1904.

55.

Zysk

Fraunberger

Veihelmann

et al . Tunnel enlargement and changes in synovial fluid cytokine profile following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004;12:98-103.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

Cortical Button Versus Cross-pin Femoral Fixation for Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials