Cargando…
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
BACKGROUND: Initial fixation strength is critical for the early post-operative rehabilitation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. However, even the best femoral fixation devices remain controversial. We compared the results of 2 of the femoral fixation techniques,Rigid...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3507032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23210091 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.98566 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Initial fixation strength is critical for the early post-operative rehabilitation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. However, even the best femoral fixation devices remain controversial. We compared the results of 2 of the femoral fixation techniques,Rigidfix and Transfix. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients with unilateral ACL deficiency were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. In Group A an anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed using Rigidfix technique(Mitek, Norwood,MA), Group B were treated by a single bundle using Transfix technique(Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). For tibial fixation, a bioabsorbable Intrafix interference screw was used for all the groups and the graft was fashioned from the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons in all patients. The patients were subjected to a clinical evaluation, with assessment of the anterior drawer, Lachman's and the pivot-shift tests. They also completed the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. RESULTS: At a mean of 14 months (12–17) followup there were no significant differences concerning time between injury and range of movement between the 2 groups. However, the Rigidfix group showed significantly better results for the subjective assessment of knee function (P = 0.002). The Lachman, anterior drawer, and pivot-shift tests also showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The IKDC scale showed no significant difference among the groups (P < 0.001).There was no difference regarding duration of operation and cost of the operation between the 2 groups.On clinical evaluation there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. However, regardless of the technique, all knees were improved by ACL reconstruction compared with their preoperative status. CONCLUSION: Both techniques can be used for reconstruction of ACL. Other factors, such as psychic profile of the patients should be considered for surgery planning. |
---|