BACKGROUND: Screw and suture fixations are the most commonly used methods of fixation in treatment of anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fractures. Even though a few biomechanical studies have compared the stability of the 2 fixation techniques, a clinical comparison has not yet been reported. HYPOTHESIS: The authors hypothesized that both fixations would be identical in all studied clinical outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients treated with either screw fixation (16 patients) or suture fixation (17 patients) within 1 month of the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture (type II or III) without associated ligamentous injury were included. All patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up in terms of Lysholm knee scores and return to preinjury activities. Knee stability was compared based on the Lachman test and stress radiography. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of average Lysholm knee scores (91.7 in the screw group and 92.7 in the suture group, P = .413) at follow-up. All patients except 2 (1 in each group) returned to preinjury activity levels. However, flexion contractures (5 degrees to 10 degrees) were found in 3 patients in the screw group and 2 patients in the suture group without significant intergroup difference. Stabilities based on the Lachman test and instrumented stress radiography were also similar between the 2 groups at follow-up. However, 2 patients in the screw group and 1 in the suture group showed more than 5 mm laxity compared with the contralateral knee on stress radiographs. CONCLUSION: Both the screw and suture fixation techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture produced relatively good results in terms of functional outcomes and stability without any significant differences. However, some patients in both groups showed residual laxity or flexion contractures.
BACKGROUND: Screw and suture fixations are the most commonly used methods of fixation in treatment of anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fractures. Even though a few biomechanical studies have compared the stability of the 2 fixation techniques, a clinical comparison has not yet been reported. HYPOTHESIS: The authors hypothesized that both fixations would be identical in all studied clinical outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients treated with either screw fixation (16 patients) or suture fixation (17 patients) within 1 month of the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture (type II or III) without associated ligamentous injury were included. All patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up in terms of Lysholm knee scores and return to preinjury activities. Knee stability was compared based on the Lachman test and stress radiography. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of average Lysholm knee scores (91.7 in the screw group and 92.7 in the suture group, P = .413) at follow-up. All patients except 2 (1 in each group) returned to preinjury activity levels. However, flexion contractures (5 degrees to 10 degrees) were found in 3 patients in the screw group and 2 patients in the suture group without significant intergroup difference. Stabilities based on the Lachman test and instrumented stress radiography were also similar between the 2 groups at follow-up. However, 2 patients in the screw group and 1 in the suture group showed more than 5 mm laxity compared with the contralateral knee on stress radiographs. CONCLUSION: Both the screw and suture fixation techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture produced relatively good results in terms of functional outcomes and stability without any significant differences. However, some patients in both groups showed residual laxity or flexion contractures.
Authors: Patricia M Lutz; Stephanie Geyer; Philipp W Winkler; Markus Irger; Daniel P Berthold; Matthias J Feucht; Andreas B Imhoff; Philipp Forkel Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Octav Marius Russu; Tudor Sorin Pop; Emilian Ciorcila; István Gergely; Sándor-György Zuh; Cristian Trâmbițaș; Paul Gabriel Borodi; Zsuzsanna Incze-Bartha; Andrei Marian Feier; Vlad Alexandru Georgeanu Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-05-19