Persson Andreas, Kjellsen Asle B, Fjeldsgaard Knut, Engebretsen Lars, Espehaug Birgitte, Fevang Jonas M
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Sep;43(9):2182-8. doi: 10.1177/0363546515584757. Epub 2015 May 14.
Compared with a patellar tendon autograft (PT), a hamstring tendon autograft (HT) has an increased risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). There are no studies analyzing whether this can be explained by inferior fixation devices used in HT reconstruction or whether the revision risk of ACLR with an HT or a PT is influenced by the graft fixation.
To compare the risk of revision and the revision rates between the most commonly used combinations of fixation for HTs with PTs.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
This study included all patients registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from 2004 through 2013 who underwent primary PT or HT ACLR with no concomitant ligament injury and known graft fixation. The 2-year revision rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) for revision at 2 years were calculated using multivariate Cox regression models.
A total of 14,034 patients with primary ACLR were identified: 3806 patients with PTs and 10,228 patients with HTs; the mean follow-up time was 4.5 years. In the HT group, 5 different combinations of fixation in the femur/tibia were used in more than 500 patients: Endobutton/RCI screw (n = 2339), EZLoc/WasherLoc (n = 1352), Endobutton/Biosure HA (n = 1209), Endobutton/Intrafix (n = 687), and TransFix II/metal interference screw (MIS) (n = 620). The crude 2-year revision rate for patients with PTs was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.0%), and for patients with HTs, it ranged between the groups from 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-2.4%) for TransFix II/MIS to 5.5% (95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%) for Endobutton/Biosure HA. When adjusted for detected confounding factors and compared with patients with PTs, the HR for revision at 2 years was increased for all HT combinations used in more than 500 patients, and the combinations Endobutton/Biosure HA and Endobutton/Intrafix had the highest HRs of 7.3 (95% CI, 4.4-12.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 3.1-9.9), respectively.
The choice of fixation after ACLR with an HT has a significant effect on a patient's risk of revision. In this study population, none of the examined combinations of HT fixation had a revision rate as low as that for a PT.
与髌腱自体移植(PT)相比,腘绳肌腱自体移植(HT)在前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)后翻修风险增加。尚无研究分析这是否可由HT重建中使用的固定装置较差来解释,或者HT或PT进行ACLR的翻修风险是否受移植物固定的影响。
比较HT与PT最常用固定组合之间的翻修风险和翻修率。
队列研究;证据等级,2级。
本研究纳入了2004年至2013年在挪威膝关节韧带登记处登记的所有患者,这些患者接受了初次PT或HT ACLR,无合并韧带损伤且移植物固定情况已知。使用Kaplan-Meier分析计算2年翻修率。使用多变量Cox回归模型计算2年时翻修的风险比(HR)。
共确定了14034例初次ACLR患者:3806例PT患者和10228例HT患者;平均随访时间为4.5年。在HT组中,超过500例患者使用了5种不同股骨/胫骨固定组合:Endobutton/RCI螺钉(n = 2339)、EZLoc/垫圈定位器(n = 1352)、Endobutton/Biosure HA(n = 1209)、Endobutton/Intrafix(n = 687)以及TransFix II/金属干涉螺钉(MIS)(n = 620)。PT患者的2年粗翻修率为0.7%(95%CI,0.4% - 1.0%),HT患者的2年粗翻修率在各组合之间,从TransFix II/MIS的1.5%(95%CI,0.5% - 2.4%)到Endobutton/Biosure HA的5.5%(95%CI,4.0% - 7.0%)不等。在对检测到的混杂因素进行调整后,并与PT患者相比,超过500例患者使用的所有HT组合的2年翻修HR均增加,Endobutton/Biosure HA和Endobutton/Intrafix组合的HR最高,分别为7.3(95%CI,4.4 - 12.1)和5.5(95%CI,3.1 - 9.9)。
ACLR后使用HT进行固定的选择对患者的翻修风险有显著影响。在本研究人群中,所检查的HT固定组合中没有一个的翻修率与PT一样低。