James Randolph Onggo1, Mithun Nambiar2, Vishal Pai2. 1. Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: jamesonggo1993@gmail.com. 2. Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare biomechanical and clinical outcomes between adjustable-loop devices (ALDs) and fixed-loop devices (FLDs) in the femoral fixation component of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a hamstring autograft or allograft. METHODS: A multi-database search was performed on July 18, 2018, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All articles directly comparing ALDs and FLDs in ACLR using hamstring grafts were included. Non-English-language articles were excluded. RESULTS: We included 13 biomechanical, 2 prospective, and 6 retrospective studies in this review. Retensioning of ALDs was performed in 4 of 13 biomechanical studies and in all clinical studies. Biomechanically, 11 studies showed a statistically significantly larger maximum irreversible displacement of the graft in the ALD group. Two studies showed no statistically significant difference with retensioning of the TightRope ALD, whereas all 3 studies that examined knotting of ALDs showed no statistically significant difference between the FLD and ALD groups. Five studies reported statistically significantly higher graft stiffness for FLDs than ALDs. Retensioning or knotting did not produce any significant change in construct stiffness. Nine studies reported a statistically significantly higher ultimate load to failure for FLDs. With knotting of ALDs, this difference was no longer statistically significant in only 1 study. Clinical studies showed no statistically significant differences in clinical, functional, radiologic, and complication outcomes between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the superior biomechanical properties of FLDs, ALDs and FLDs yielded similar clinical outcome scores and graft rerupture rates. Biomechanical outcomes were improved with retensioning of ALDs after tibial fixation, as per manufacturer recommendations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
PURPOSE: To compare biomechanical and clinical outcomes between adjustable-loop devices (ALDs) and fixed-loop devices (FLDs) in the femoral fixation component of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a hamstring autograft or allograft. METHODS: A multi-database search was performed on July 18, 2018, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All articles directly comparing ALDs and FLDs in ACLR using hamstring grafts were included. Non-English-language articles were excluded. RESULTS: We included 13 biomechanical, 2 prospective, and 6 retrospective studies in this review. Retensioning of ALDs was performed in 4 of 13 biomechanical studies and in all clinical studies. Biomechanically, 11 studies showed a statistically significantly larger maximum irreversible displacement of the graft in the ALD group. Two studies showed no statistically significant difference with retensioning of the TightRope ALD, whereas all 3 studies that examined knotting of ALDs showed no statistically significant difference between the FLD and ALD groups. Five studies reported statistically significantly higher graft stiffness for FLDs than ALDs. Retensioning or knotting did not produce any significant change in construct stiffness. Nine studies reported a statistically significantly higher ultimate load to failure for FLDs. With knotting of ALDs, this difference was no longer statistically significant in only 1 study. Clinical studies showed no statistically significant differences in clinical, functional, radiologic, and complication outcomes between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the superior biomechanical properties of FLDs, ALDs and FLDs yielded similar clinical outcome scores and graft rerupture rates. Biomechanical outcomes were improved with retensioning of ALDs after tibial fixation, as per manufacturer recommendations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
Authors: Christopher M Gibbs; Philipp W Winkler; Robert T Tisherman; Calvin K Chan; Theresa A Diermeier; Richard E Debski; Volker Musahl Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-11-11
Authors: Sebastian Schützenberger; F Keller; S Grabner; D Kontic; D Schallmayer; M Komjati; C Fialka Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 2.677