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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamid, Mousavi, Majid, Mohammadi
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
_version_ 1782251001375358976
author Hamid, Mousavi
Majid, Mohammadi
author_facet Hamid, Mousavi
Majid, Mohammadi
author_sort Hamid, Mousavi
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3507032
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35070322012-12-03 Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique Hamid, Mousavi Majid, Mohammadi Adv Biomed Res Original Article 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. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3507032/ /pubmed/23210091 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.98566 Text en Copyright: © 2012 Hamid. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hamid, Mousavi
Majid, Mohammadi
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
title Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
title_full Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
title_fullStr Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
title_full_unstemmed Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
title_short Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
title_sort anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle transfix technique
topic Original Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT hamidmousavi anteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusingautologoushamstringsinglebundlerigidfixtechniquecomparedwithsinglebundletransfixtechnique
AT majidmohammadi anteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusingautologoushamstringsinglebundlerigidfixtechniquecomparedwithsinglebundletransfixtechnique