Suppr超能文献

随机对照试验研究骨诱导固定螺钉在前交叉韧带重建中的应用:Calaxo 螺钉与 Milagro 螺钉的比较。

Randomized controlled trial of osteoconductive fixation screws for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of the Calaxo and Milagro screws.

机构信息

North Sydney Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Centre, The Mater Clinic, Wollstonecraft, Australia.

出版信息

Arthroscopy. 2013 Jan;29(1):74-82. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.10.021.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the outcome of 2 bioabsorbable screws for tibial interference fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with reference to rate of absorption, osteoconductive properties, and clinical outcome.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft in a single unit were invited to participate in this study. Patients were randomized to receive either the Calaxo screw (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA) or Milagro screw (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA) for tibial fixation. Patients were reviewed with subjective and objective evaluation by use of the International Knee Documentation Committee form, Lysholm score, KT-1000 arthrometry (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), and clinical examination. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 1 year and computed tomography scanning at 1 week and at 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Sixty patients agreed to participate in the study, with 32 patients randomized to the Calaxo screw and 28 to the Milagro screw for tibial fixation. There was no significant difference in subjective or objective clinical outcome between the 2 groups. At 24 months, 88% of Calaxo screws showed complete screw resorption compared with 0% of Milagro screws (P < .001). Tibial cysts were present in 88% of the Calaxo group and 7% of the Milagro group (P = .001). At 24 months, the mean volume of new bone formation for the Calaxo group was 21% of original screw volume. Ossification of the Milagro screw was unable to be accurately assessed as a result of incomplete screw resorption.

CONCLUSIONS

Both screws showed similar favorable objective and subjective outcomes at 2 years. The Calaxo screw resorbed completely over a period of 6 months and was associated with a high incidence of intra-tunnel cyst formation. The Milagro screw increased in volume over a period of 6 months, followed by a gradual resorption, which was still ongoing at 2 years. Both screws were associated with tunnel widening, and neither showed evidence of significant tunnel ossification. We conclude that, despite satisfactory clinical outcomes, the addition of "osteoconductive" materials to bioabsorbable screws is not associated with bone formation at the screw site at 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

摘要

目的

比较 2 种生物可吸收螺钉用于前交叉韧带重建时的胫骨干扰固定的效果,以参考吸收率、骨传导特性和临床结果。

方法

邀请在单一单位接受腘绳肌腱自体移植的原发性前交叉韧带重建的患者参与这项研究。将患者随机分为 Calaxo 螺钉(Smith & Nephew,马萨诸塞州安多弗)或 Milagro 螺钉(DePuy Mitek,雷纳姆,马萨诸塞州)用于胫骨固定。使用国际膝关节文献委员会表格、Lysholm 评分、KT-1000 关节测量仪(MEDmetric,圣地亚哥,加利福尼亚州)和临床检查对患者进行主观和客观评估。在 1 年时进行磁共振成像,在 1 周和 6、12 和 24 个月时进行计算机断层扫描。

结果

60 名患者同意参与这项研究,其中 32 名患者随机分配到 Calaxo 螺钉组,28 名患者分配到 Milagro 螺钉组用于胫骨固定。两组的主观或客观临床结果没有显著差异。在 24 个月时,88%的 Calaxo 螺钉显示完全螺钉吸收,而 0%的 Milagro 螺钉显示(P<0.001)。Calaxo 组有 88%出现胫骨囊肿,而 Milagro 组有 7%出现(P=0.001)。在 24 个月时,Calaxo 组的新骨形成平均体积为原始螺钉体积的 21%。由于不完全的螺钉吸收,无法准确评估 Milagro 螺钉的骨化情况。

结论

两种螺钉在 2 年时均显示出类似的良好的客观和主观结果。Calaxo 螺钉在 6 个月内完全吸收,并伴有隧道内囊肿形成的高发生率。Milagro 螺钉在 6 个月内体积增大,随后逐渐吸收,2 年后仍在进行。两种螺钉均与隧道增宽有关,均无明显隧道骨化的证据。我们的结论是,尽管临床结果令人满意,但在生物可吸收螺钉中添加“骨传导”材料并不能在 2 年内增加螺钉部位的骨形成。

证据水平

I 级,随机对照试验。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验