Literature DB >> 35602836

Comparison of Fixed- and Variable-Loop Button Fixation in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Vijay Chandru1, Santhosh M S1, Sujana Theja J S1, Rohit R Nair1.   

Abstract

Introduction With the advent of fixed- and variable-loop suspensory fixation devices for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, a maximum number of grafts can be placed within the femoral tunnel. Although several biomechanical studies have been conducted comparing these two devices, only a few comparative clinical studies are available. This study was conducted to compare the functional outcomes of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using fixed-loop devices with those of variable-loop devices by determining their effect on graft laxity clinical assessment and patient-reported outcome scores. Methodology Out of 32 patients (27 males and five females) who underwent primary ACL reconstruction using tripled hamstring autograft, fixed- and variable-loop devices were used for 13 and 19 patients, respectively. Thirteen patients in each group were evaluated over a period of one year using the Lysholm knee score. Six patients in the variable-loop group had only six months of follow-up. Anterior drawer and Lachman tests were performed at six-month and one-year follow-ups, respectively. Results The mean ages of patients in the fixed- and variable-loop groups were 34.5[Formula: see text]11 and 34.1[Formula: see text]9.1 years, respectively. The Lysholm knee score at six weeks was fair in 7.7% of the patients in the fixed-loop group when compared to 52.6% of those in the variable-loop group (p<0.05). All the other parameters were comparable between the two groups. One patient in each group had ligament laxity at six-month and one-year follow-up, respectively. Conclusion This study showed no statistically significant difference in graft laxity or functional outcomes of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with fixed- and variable-loop devices, except for a better patient-reported outcome score in the variable-loop group at six weeks of follow-up. Hence, there is a need for more comparative studies in this direction.
Copyright © 2022, Chandru et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arthroscopic acl reconstruction; fixed loop devices; graft laxity; lysholm knee score; variable loop devices

Year:  2022        PMID: 35602836      PMCID: PMC9117830          DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24218

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cureus        ISSN: 2168-8184


  27 in total

Review 1.  Complications of arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Robin Allum
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2003-01

2.  Three femoral fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of fixation on the lateral cortex versus the anterior cortex.

Authors:  Chad S Conner; Brandon A Perez; Randal P Morris; James W Buckner; William L Buford; Frank M Ivey
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 3.  Prevention and Management of Post-operative Complications Following ACL Reconstruction.

Authors:  Brian J Eckenrode; James L Carey; Brian J Sennett; Miltiadis H Zgonis
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-09

Review 4.  Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: fact or fiction?

Authors:  J Höher; H D Möller; F H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Does adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspension loosen after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A retrospective comparative study.

Authors:  Matthew J Boyle; Tyler J Vovos; Cameron G Walker; Kathryne J Stabile; Jonathan M Roth; William E Garrett
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  A biomechanical comparison of femoral cortical suspension devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction under high loads.

Authors:  Jared S Johnson; Sean D Smith; Christopher M LaPrade; Travis Lee Turnbull; Robert F LaPrade; Coen A Wijdicks
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries.

Authors:  Y Tegner; J Lysholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Instrumented measurement of anterior knee laxity in patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament disruption.

Authors:  D M Daniel; M L Stone; R Sachs; L Malcom
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1985 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Positioning of the tibial tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  E M Goble; D J Downey; T R Wilcox
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.772

10.  Grading of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Diagnostic efficacy of oblique coronal magnetic resonance imaging of the knee.

Authors:  Sung Hwan Hong; Ja-Young Choi; Gyung Kyu Lee; Jung-Ah Choi; Hye Won Chung; Heung Sik Kang
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.826

View more
  1 in total

1.  Functional and clinical outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with peroneus longus autograft and correlation with MRI after 3 years.

Authors:  Amyn M Rajani; Urvil A Shah; Anmol Rs Mittal; Alisha Rajani; Meenakshi Punamiya; Richa Singhal
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-08-30
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.