Cargando…

The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The hamstring autograft is one of the most common grafts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and a large number of fixation methods are available. There are no studies investigating the risk of revision for specific fixation devices. Revision ACLR is a rela...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Persson, Andreas, Gifstad, Tone, Forssblad, Magnus, Lind, Martin, Engebretsen, Lars
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4901973/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116S00050
_version_ 1782436910113751040
author Persson, Andreas
Gifstad, Tone
Forssblad, Magnus
Lind, Martin
Engebretsen, Lars
author_facet Persson, Andreas
Gifstad, Tone
Forssblad, Magnus
Lind, Martin
Engebretsen, Lars
author_sort Persson, Andreas
collection PubMed
description AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The hamstring autograft is one of the most common grafts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and a large number of fixation methods are available. There are no studies investigating the risk of revision for specific fixation devices. Revision ACLR is a relatively rare event and large registry-based prospective studies make it possible to analyze differences in risk of revision according to clinical and demographic factors. The aim of the present registry-based study was to describe the current use of fixation method and to compare risk of revision between various femoral and tibial fixation methods in Scandinavia during the study period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 38 666 patients undergoing primary ACL reconstructions in the period 2004-2011 were included in the present study. Less frequently used fixation devices were grouped according to the point of graft fixation. To compare the risk of revision between various fixation methods, the multiple Cox proportional hazard (PH) regression model was applied. Hazard rate ratios (HR with 95% confidence interval (CI)) were reported as measure of effect. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 3 years (range 0 to 8 years). The present data included a total of 1042 revision ACL reconstructions. Based on a Cox PH regression model stratified for country and mutual adjustment for gender, age at surgery (five-year categories), activity at the time when the primary injury occurred, femoral fixation and tibial fixation, we found a significantly lower risk of revision for the transfemoral fixation devices Rigidfix (0.7 (0.6-0.8)) and Transfix (0.7 (0.6-0.9)) compared with the cortical device Endobutton (ref.). The same model showed that a retro interference screw used for tibial fixation had a higher risk of revision (1.9 (1.3-2.9)) compared with a standard interference screw (ref.). CONCLUSION: In view of the findings in the present study, both femoral and tibial fixation method of hamstring autografts seem to be of significance when evaluating the risk of revision.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4901973
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49019732016-06-10 The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011 Persson, Andreas Gifstad, Tone Forssblad, Magnus Lind, Martin Engebretsen, Lars Orthop J Sports Med Article AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The hamstring autograft is one of the most common grafts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and a large number of fixation methods are available. There are no studies investigating the risk of revision for specific fixation devices. Revision ACLR is a relatively rare event and large registry-based prospective studies make it possible to analyze differences in risk of revision according to clinical and demographic factors. The aim of the present registry-based study was to describe the current use of fixation method and to compare risk of revision between various femoral and tibial fixation methods in Scandinavia during the study period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 38 666 patients undergoing primary ACL reconstructions in the period 2004-2011 were included in the present study. Less frequently used fixation devices were grouped according to the point of graft fixation. To compare the risk of revision between various fixation methods, the multiple Cox proportional hazard (PH) regression model was applied. Hazard rate ratios (HR with 95% confidence interval (CI)) were reported as measure of effect. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 3 years (range 0 to 8 years). The present data included a total of 1042 revision ACL reconstructions. Based on a Cox PH regression model stratified for country and mutual adjustment for gender, age at surgery (five-year categories), activity at the time when the primary injury occurred, femoral fixation and tibial fixation, we found a significantly lower risk of revision for the transfemoral fixation devices Rigidfix (0.7 (0.6-0.8)) and Transfix (0.7 (0.6-0.9)) compared with the cortical device Endobutton (ref.). The same model showed that a retro interference screw used for tibial fixation had a higher risk of revision (1.9 (1.3-2.9)) compared with a standard interference screw (ref.). CONCLUSION: In view of the findings in the present study, both femoral and tibial fixation method of hamstring autografts seem to be of significance when evaluating the risk of revision. SAGE Publications 2016-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4901973/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116S00050 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
spellingShingle Article
Persson, Andreas
Gifstad, Tone
Forssblad, Magnus
Lind, Martin
Engebretsen, Lars
The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011
title The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011
title_full The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011
title_fullStr The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011
title_full_unstemmed The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011
title_short The impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in ACL reconstruction - a study from the Scandinavian ACL registries, 2004-2011
title_sort impact of fixation methods on the risk of revision in acl reconstruction - a study from the scandinavian acl registries, 2004-2011
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4901973/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116S00050
work_keys_str_mv AT perssonandreas theimpactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT gifstadtone theimpactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT forssbladmagnus theimpactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT lindmartin theimpactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT engebretsenlars theimpactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT perssonandreas impactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT gifstadtone impactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT forssbladmagnus impactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT lindmartin impactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011
AT engebretsenlars impactoffixationmethodsontheriskofrevisioninaclreconstructionastudyfromthescandinavianaclregistries20042011