Cargando…
Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
BACKGROUND: To determine the characteristics of cross-pin protrusion in patients treated with the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device for femoral tunnel preparation through the anteromedial portal in Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), analyse the reasons for this out...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8951699/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35337308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05250-8 |
_version_ | 1784675451247001600 |
---|---|
author | Luo, Zhongliu Hu, Yong Han, Qingmin Gao, Zhi Cheng, Songmiao |
author_facet | Luo, Zhongliu Hu, Yong Han, Qingmin Gao, Zhi Cheng, Songmiao |
author_sort | Luo, Zhongliu |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To determine the characteristics of cross-pin protrusion in patients treated with the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device for femoral tunnel preparation through the anteromedial portal in Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), analyse the reasons for this outcome, and identify safety hazards of this surgical technique for improvement. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ACLR using this technology at our hospital in 2018 was conducted. Patients with and without cross-pin protrusion were included in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The sex, age and imaging characteristics of the patients with cross-pin protrusion were identified, and the reasons for cross-pin protrusion were analysed. RESULTS: There were 64 and 212 patients in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The proportion of cross-pin protrusion cases was 23.19% (64/276). There was a significant difference in the ratio of males to females (P < 0.001, χ2 = 185.184), the mediolateral femoral condyle diameter (protrusion positive group, 70.59 ± 2.51 mm; protrusion negative group, 82.65 ± 4.16 mm; P < 0.001, t = 28.424), and the anteroposterior diameter of the lateral femoral condyle (protrusion positive group, 58.34 ± 2.89 mm; protrusion negative group, 66.38 ± 3.53 mm; P < 0.001, t = 16.615). The cross-pins did not penetrate the lateral femoral condyle cortex in patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated the cortex when the diameter was ≤ 70 mm. The cross-pins did not penetrate when the anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter was ≥ 66 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated it when the diameter was ≤ 59 mm. CONCLUSION: The patients with cross-pin protrusion after reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation treatment to prepare the femoral tunnel through the anteromedial portal in ACLR were mainly females with small femoral condyles. For patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm and an anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 66 mm, there is no risk of cross-pin protrusion, so this technique can be used with confidence. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05250-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8951699 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89516992022-03-26 Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Luo, Zhongliu Hu, Yong Han, Qingmin Gao, Zhi Cheng, Songmiao BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: To determine the characteristics of cross-pin protrusion in patients treated with the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device for femoral tunnel preparation through the anteromedial portal in Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), analyse the reasons for this outcome, and identify safety hazards of this surgical technique for improvement. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ACLR using this technology at our hospital in 2018 was conducted. Patients with and without cross-pin protrusion were included in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The sex, age and imaging characteristics of the patients with cross-pin protrusion were identified, and the reasons for cross-pin protrusion were analysed. RESULTS: There were 64 and 212 patients in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The proportion of cross-pin protrusion cases was 23.19% (64/276). There was a significant difference in the ratio of males to females (P < 0.001, χ2 = 185.184), the mediolateral femoral condyle diameter (protrusion positive group, 70.59 ± 2.51 mm; protrusion negative group, 82.65 ± 4.16 mm; P < 0.001, t = 28.424), and the anteroposterior diameter of the lateral femoral condyle (protrusion positive group, 58.34 ± 2.89 mm; protrusion negative group, 66.38 ± 3.53 mm; P < 0.001, t = 16.615). The cross-pins did not penetrate the lateral femoral condyle cortex in patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated the cortex when the diameter was ≤ 70 mm. The cross-pins did not penetrate when the anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter was ≥ 66 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated it when the diameter was ≤ 59 mm. CONCLUSION: The patients with cross-pin protrusion after reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation treatment to prepare the femoral tunnel through the anteromedial portal in ACLR were mainly females with small femoral condyles. For patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm and an anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 66 mm, there is no risk of cross-pin protrusion, so this technique can be used with confidence. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05250-8. BioMed Central 2022-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8951699/ /pubmed/35337308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05250-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Luo, Zhongliu Hu, Yong Han, Qingmin Gao, Zhi Cheng, Songmiao Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title | Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_full | Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_fullStr | Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_full_unstemmed | Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_short | Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
title_sort | safe femoral condyle range for the reverse rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8951699/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35337308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05250-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT luozhongliu safefemoralcondylerangeforthereverserigidfixfemoralfixationdeviceinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT huyong safefemoralcondylerangeforthereverserigidfixfemoralfixationdeviceinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT hanqingmin safefemoralcondylerangeforthereverserigidfixfemoralfixationdeviceinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT gaozhi safefemoralcondylerangeforthereverserigidfixfemoralfixationdeviceinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT chengsongmiao safefemoralcondylerangeforthereverserigidfixfemoralfixationdeviceinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction |