Lindsey M Spragg1, Heather A Prentice2, Andrew Morris3, Tadashi T Funahashi1, Gregory B Maletis4, Rick P Csintalan5. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 6670 Alton Pkwy, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. 2. Surgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Baldwin Park, CA, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 6670 Alton Pkwy, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. Rick.P.Csintalan@kp.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Newer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral-tibial fixation methods. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007-2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral-tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral-tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral-tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory-interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference-interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory-combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin-interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin-interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65) and interference-interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) methods compared to the suspensory-interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin-interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37-3.32) and suspensory-combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.69) methods compared to suspensory-interference. CONCLUSIONS: ACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: Newer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral-tibial fixation methods. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007-2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral-tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral-tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral-tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory-interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference-interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory-combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin-interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin-interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65) and interference-interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) methods compared to the suspensory-interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin-interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37-3.32) and suspensory-combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.69) methods compared to suspensory-interference. CONCLUSIONS: ACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Yan Xu; Jianyu Liu; Scott Kramer; Cesar Martins; Yuki Kato; Monica Linde-Rosen; Patrick Smolinski; Freddie H Fu Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-12-04 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Andreas Persson; Asle B Kjellsen; Knut Fjeldsgaard; Lars Engebretsen; Birgitte Espehaug; Jonas M Fevang Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Thorkell Snaebjörnsson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Olufemi R Ayeni; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Ferid Krupic; Fredrik Norberg; Jón Karlsson; Kristian Samuelsson Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Tone Gifstad; Olav A Foss; Lars Engebretsen; Martin Lind; Magnus Forssblad; Grethe Albrektsen; Jon Olav Drogset Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Elizabeth W Paxton; Mary-Lou Kiley; Rebecca Love; Thomas C Barber; Tadashi T Funahashi; Maria C S Inacio Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2013-06
Authors: Marco Cuzzolin; Davide Previtali; Marco Delcogliano; Giuseppe Filardo; Christian Candrian; Alberto Grassi Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-07-12