| Literature DB >> 28915914 |
Joon Ho Wang1,2,3, Eun Su Lee4, Byung Hoon Lee5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tibial aperture fixation with a bioabsorbable interference screw is a popular fixation method in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). An interference screw containing β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) to improve bony integration and biocompatibility was recently introduced. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and radiological results of tunnel enlargement effect between the 2 bioabsorbable fixative devices of pure poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) interference screws and β-TCP-containing screws, for tibial interference fixation in ACLR using hamstring autografts.Entities:
Keywords: ACL; Hamstring autograft; Interference screw; Plla; Tunnel enlargement; β-TCP
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28915914 PMCID: PMC5602947 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1757-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Patient flowchart. (ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; SB, single bundle; BPTB, bone-patellar tendon-bone; CT, computed tomography)
Fig. 2Cross-sectional area was measured at the four cutting levels of tibial tunnel in the plane perpendicular to the long axis of the tunnel: (1) joint line, (2) mid-tunnel, (3) mid-screw, and (4) outlet
Fig. 3Cross-sectional view and area (mm2) measurement of (1) the joint line, (2) the mid-tunnel, (3) the mid-screw, and (4) the outlet cutting level
Patient demographicsa
| Group A[PLLA screw]( | Group B[β-TCP screw]( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, | 36.1 ± 8.9 | 32.7 ± 12.3 | 0.225 |
| Sex, male/female, | 21:7 | 24:5 | 0.473 |
| BMI, | 24.2 ± 2.6 | 24.7 ± 3.9 | 0.848 |
| Femoral tunneling technique, | 11:17 | 17:12 | 0.144 |
| Tunnel diameter (drill size, mm) | |||
| AM | 7.5 ± 0.6 (6.5–9.5) | 7.4 ± 0.6 (6.0–9.0) | 0.387 |
| PL | 5.7 ± 0.5 (4.5–7.0) | 5.7 ± 0.5 (4.5–7.0) | 0.675 |
| Tunnel length (mm) | |||
| AM | 39.6 ± 3.9 (34–50) | 40.0 ± 2.9 (34–45) | 0.661 |
| PL | 43.7 ± 3.5 (35–50) | 44.8 ± 3.0 (38–50) | 0.228 |
BMI body mass index, TP transportal, OI outside-in
aValue are presented as mean ± standard deviation, with range in parentheses
Comparison of the cross-sectional area of the AM tibial tunnel at the four cutting levels between immediate postoperative and postoperative 1 year CT scans
| Cutting level | Cross sectional area (mm2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Immediate postop. | 1YR | Difference |
†
| |
| Joint line | 1 | 41.5 ± 6.6 | 54.6 ± 11.3 | 13.2 (31.7%) | < 0.001 |
| 2 | 42.0 ± 9.1 | 57.3 ± 12.1 | 15.4 (36.6%) | < 0.001 | |
|
*
| 0.523 | ||||
| Mid-tunnel | 1 | 41.8 ± 7.2 | 58.6 ± 11.6 | 16.8 (40.1%) | < 0.001 |
| 2 | 41.9 ± 8.7 | 70.0 ± 19.5 | 28.1 (66.9%) | < 0.001 | |
|
*
|
| ||||
| Mid-screw | 1 | 61.0 ± 10.5 | 77.6 ± 13.3 | 16.6 (27.2%) | < 0.001 |
| 2 | 63.3 ± 9.8 | 73.9 ± 14.2 | 10.6 (16.8%) | < 0.001 | |
|
*
|
| ||||
| Outlet | 1 | 62.0 ± 10.6 | 69.2 ± 15.1 | 7.3 (11.7%) | < 0.001 |
| 2 | 61.6 ± 11.3 | 68.4 ± 14.4 | 6.8 (11.0%) | < 0.001 | |
|
*
| 0.833 | ||||
1YR; postoperative 1 year
*Comparison of the increments in cross-sectional area 1 year after surgery between the two groups at the each cutting level
†Comparison of the cross-sectional area between immediate postoperative and postoperative 1 year CT scans
*Values of P < 0.05 are displayed in bold
Comparison of the cross-sectional area of the PL tibial tunnel at the four cutting levels between immediate postoperative and postoperative 1 year CT scans
| Cutting level | Cross-sectional area (mm2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Immediate postop. | 1YR | Difference |
†
| |
| Joint line | 1 | 21.1 ± 6.3 | 28.8 ± 10.5 | 7.7 (36.3%) | 0.002 |
| 2 | 24.5 ± 4.1 | 34.6 ± 7.5 | 10.1 (41.5%) | < 0.001 | |
|
*
| 0.411 | ||||
| Mid-tunnel | 1 | 23.0 ± 6.6 | 30.7 ± 11.8 | 7.7 (33.5%) | < 0.001 |
| 2 | 25.0 ± 3.8 | 36.0 ± 10.0 | 11.0 (44.2%) | < 0.001 | |
|
*
| 0.179 | ||||
| Mid-screw | 1 | 36.6 ± 8.58 | 42.4 ± 12.8 | 5.8 (15.8%) | < 0.001 |
| 2 | 40.0 ± 6.83 | 46.7 ± 13.3 | 6.7 (16.8%) | 0.003 | |
|
*
| 0.734 | ||||
| Outlet | 1 | 33.3 ± 9.4 | 34.1 ± 11.0 | 0.8 (2.5%) | 0.445 |
| 2 | 36.1 ± 8.0 | 36.6 ± 10.0 | 0.5 (1.4%) | 0.647 | |
|
*
| 0.845 | ||||
1YR; postoperative 1 year
*Comparison of the increments in cross-sectional area 1 year after surgery between two groups at each cutting level
†Comparison of the cross-sectional area between immediate postoperative and postoperative 1 year CT scans
Clinical outcomes
| Group A | Group B | p - value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| KT-2000™ side-to-side difference (mm) | |||
| Baseline | 4.5 ± 2.2 | 4.5 ± 2.2 | 0.964 |
| 24 months | 2.1 ± 1.1 | 1.8 ± 1.5 | 0.334 |
| Lysholm knee score | |||
| Baseline | 71.6 ± 21.7 | 61.9 ± 22.8 | 0.102 |
| 24 months | 94.4 ± 6.8 | 94.1 ± 6.3 | 0.848 |
| HSS score (/100) | |||
| Baseline | 92.1 ± 11.8 | 86.6 ± 15.7 | 0.131 |
| 24 months | 99.4 ± 1.7 | 99.6 ± 1.9 | 0.691 |
| IKDC subjective score | |||
| Baseline | 58.2 ± 16.2 | 51.6 ± 19.0 | 0.157 |
| 24 months | 85.0 ± 11.7 | 86.4 ± 9.5 | 0.610 |
| Tegner score | |||
| Baseline | 3.7 ± 1.4 | 3.8 ± 1.9 | 0.706 |
| 24 months | 6.3 ± 1.5 | 6.3 ± 1.6 | 0.977 |
Values are expressed as median ± standard deviation
ROM range of motion, IKDC International Knee Documentation Committee
Fig. 4Bony integration was observed in the screw-bone contact area in group B
Fig. 5Sclerotic margin without bony integration in the screw-bone contact area was observed in group A
Fig. 6In group B, the degree of tunnel enlargement increased abruptly proximal to the screw end