Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Surgery 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

A prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices—rigidfix, bioscrew, and intrafix—randomized into 4 groups with a minimum follow-up of 5 years

Authors: Leena Metso, Ville Bister, Jerker Sandelin, Arsi Harilainen

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) reconstruction remains the gold standard surgical option for patients with ACL tears. There are many fixation devices available for ACL reconstruction. Recent ACL reconstruction strategies are aiming to reproduce the native anatomy and normal kinematics of the knee. This is a five years follow-up report of some of the new devices for graft fixation. A two years follow-up data was published previously.

Methods

120 patients were randomized into four different groups (30 each) for ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendons: group I femoral Rigidfix cross-pin and Intrafix tibial extension sheath with a tapered expansion screw; group II Rigidfix femoral and BioScrew interference screw tibial fixation; group III BioScrew femoral and Intrafix tibial fixation; group IV BioScrew fixation into both tunnels. The evaluation methods were clinical examination, knee scores, and instrumented laxity measurements.

Results

In this 5 years follow-up there were 102/120 (85%) patients available, but only 77 (64,2%) attended the clinical examinations. No significant difference between the groups in the clinical results was detected. Between the 2 and 5 years follow-up there were 6 additional procedures in group I and one in group II. There was a significant difference in additional procedures between group I and the other groups (P = .041).

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant difference in the additional procedures, most in group I (six). The ACL grafts were intact. Other statistically or clinically significant differences in the 5 years follow-up results were not found.

Study design

Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Trial registration ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN34011837. Retrospectively registered 17.4.2020.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sanders TL, Kremers HM, Bryan AJ, Larson DR, Dahm DL, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction. A 21-year population-based study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1502–7.CrossRef Sanders TL, Kremers HM, Bryan AJ, Larson DR, Dahm DL, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction. A 21-year population-based study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1502–7.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Frank RM, Hamamoto JT, Bernardoni E, Cvetanovich G, Bach BR Jr, Verma NN, Bush-Joseph CA. ACL reconstruction basics: Quadruple (4-Strand) hamstring autograft harvest. Arthroscopy Tech. 2017;6(4):1309–13.CrossRef Frank RM, Hamamoto JT, Bernardoni E, Cvetanovich G, Bach BR Jr, Verma NN, Bush-Joseph CA. ACL reconstruction basics: Quadruple (4-Strand) hamstring autograft harvest. Arthroscopy Tech. 2017;6(4):1309–13.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Harilainen A, Sandelin J. A Prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices—Rigidfix, BioScrew, and Intrafix—Randomized into 4 groups with 2 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:699–706.CrossRef Harilainen A, Sandelin J. A Prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices—Rigidfix, BioScrew, and Intrafix—Randomized into 4 groups with 2 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:699–706.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop. 1985;198:43–9.CrossRef Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop. 1985;198:43–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150–4.CrossRef Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150–4.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ, Members of the International Knee Documentation Committee. The international knee documentation committee subjective knee evaluation form: normative data. Am J Sports med. 2006;34:128–35.CrossRef Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ, Members of the International Knee Documentation Committee. The international knee documentation committee subjective knee evaluation form: normative data. Am J Sports med. 2006;34:128–35.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kujala UM, Jaakkola LH, Koskinen SK, Taimela S, Hurme M, Nelimarkka O. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy. 1993;9:159–63.CrossRef Kujala UM, Jaakkola LH, Koskinen SK, Taimela S, Hurme M, Nelimarkka O. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy. 1993;9:159–63.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Harvey A, Thomas NP, Amis AA. Fixation of the graft in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(5):593–603.CrossRef Harvey A, Thomas NP, Amis AA. Fixation of the graft in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(5):593–603.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Milano G, Mulas PD, Ziranu F, Piras S, Manunta A, Fabbriciani C. Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(6):660–8.CrossRef Milano G, Mulas PD, Ziranu F, Piras S, Manunta A, Fabbriciani C. Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(6):660–8.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kousa P, Järvinen TLN, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Järvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part II: Tibial site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):182–8.CrossRef Kousa P, Järvinen TLN, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Järvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part II: Tibial site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):182–8.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Aga C, Rasmussen MT, Smith SD, Jansson KS, LaPrade RF, Engebretsen L, Wijdicks CA. Biomechanical comparison of interference screws and combination screw and sheath devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the tibial side. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:841–8.CrossRef Aga C, Rasmussen MT, Smith SD, Jansson KS, LaPrade RF, Engebretsen L, Wijdicks CA. Biomechanical comparison of interference screws and combination screw and sheath devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the tibial side. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:841–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kousa P, Järvinen TLN, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Järvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part I: femoral site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):174–81.CrossRef Kousa P, Järvinen TLN, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Järvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part I: femoral site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):174–81.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Persson A, Kjellsen AB, Fjeldsgaard K, Engebretsen L, Espehaug B, Fevang JM. Registry data highlight increased revision rates for endobutton/biosure HA in ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: a nationwide cohort study from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry, 2004–2013. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(9):2182–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515584757.CrossRefPubMed Persson A, Kjellsen AB, Fjeldsgaard K, Engebretsen L, Espehaug B, Fevang JM. Registry data highlight increased revision rates for endobutton/biosure HA in ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: a nationwide cohort study from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry, 2004–2013. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(9):2182–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0363546515584757​.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Björkman P, Sandelin J, Harilainen A. A randomized prospective controlled study with 5-year follow-up of cross-pin femoral fixation versus metal interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:2353–9.CrossRef Björkman P, Sandelin J, Harilainen A. A randomized prospective controlled study with 5-year follow-up of cross-pin femoral fixation versus metal interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:2353–9.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Eajazi A, Madadi F, Madadi F, Boreiri M. Comparison of different methods of femoral fixation anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Med Iran. 2013;51(7):444–8.PubMed Eajazi A, Madadi F, Madadi F, Boreiri M. Comparison of different methods of femoral fixation anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Med Iran. 2013;51(7):444–8.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Aydin D, Ozcan M. Evaluation and comparison of clinical results of femoral fixation devices in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2016;23:227–32.CrossRef Aydin D, Ozcan M. Evaluation and comparison of clinical results of femoral fixation devices in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2016;23:227–32.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ibrahim SAR, Ghafar SA, Marwan Y, Mahgoub AM, Al Misfer A, Farouk H, Wagdy M, Alherran H, Khirait S. Intratunnel versus extratunnel autologous hamstring double-bundle graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of 2 femoral fixation procedures. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:161–8.CrossRef Ibrahim SAR, Ghafar SA, Marwan Y, Mahgoub AM, Al Misfer A, Farouk H, Wagdy M, Alherran H, Khirait S. Intratunnel versus extratunnel autologous hamstring double-bundle graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of 2 femoral fixation procedures. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:161–8.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Biau DJ, Katsahian S, Kartus J, Harilainen A, Feller JA, Sajovic M, Ejerhed L, Zaffagnini S, Röpke M, Nizard R. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for reconstructing the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:2470–8.CrossRef Biau DJ, Katsahian S, Kartus J, Harilainen A, Feller JA, Sajovic M, Ejerhed L, Zaffagnini S, Röpke M, Nizard R. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for reconstructing the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:2470–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices—rigidfix, bioscrew, and intrafix—randomized into 4 groups with a minimum follow-up of 5 years
Authors
Leena Metso
Ville Bister
Jerker Sandelin
Arsi Harilainen
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01685-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Surgery 1/2022 Go to the issue