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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luo, Zhongliu, Hu, Yong, Han, Qingmin, Gao, Zhi, Cheng, Songmiao
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