Carulli Christian, Matassi Fabrizio, Soderi Stefano, Sirleo Luigi, Munz Giovanni, Innocenti Massimo
Orthopaedic Clinic, University of Florence, Largo P. Palagi 1, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Apr;25(4):1264-1271. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4135-9. Epub 2016 Apr 27.
The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most performed and successful orthopaedic procedures. The results are considered independent by the choice of the graft and the fixation devices. A growing interest on resorbable non-metallic fixation devices versus standard metallic fixation devices has been noted over recent years with few clinical experiences reported in the literature. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons with tibial fixation by a centrally placed resorbable screw and sheath to a combination of an eccentrically placed resorbable interference screw and supplementary staple fixation.
Ninety patients undergoing an isolated, single-bundle, primary ACL reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendons, using the same femoral fixation, were randomized to a tibial fixation with a centrally placed resorbable screw and sheath, BioIntrafix (group A), or an eccentrically placed resorbable interference screw, BioRCI, and two non-resorbable staples (group B). The latter has represented for many years our standard fixation method. Clinical evaluations (KOOS, IKDC, KT-2000™ side-to-side difference) and radiological analyses were conducted in both groups with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.
We assisted in a satisfactory pain relief and functional improvements, without significant clinical and radiological differences in both groups. No further surgery was needed in patients with the screw/sheath tibial fixation. Seven patients with the screw/staples tibial fixation needed the surgical removal of the fixation devices due to pes anserinus irritation or local infection years after the index operation. Other parameters such as the tunnel enlargement were not statistically different in the two groups.
Good clinical and radiological outcomes of ACL reconstruction by a screw/sheath tibial fixation have been reported showing comparable results with respect to screw/staples fixation. There were no failures associated with loss of fixation with either of tibial fixation methods. A fewer number of surgical removals of tibial devices were also recorded in patients treated by the screw/sheath fixation system, related to the absence of local intolerance or infection compared to subjects with a standard tibial fixation.
前交叉韧带(ACL)重建是最常开展且最成功的骨科手术之一。手术结果被认为与移植物及固定装置的选择无关。近年来,人们对可吸收非金属固定装置与标准金属固定装置的兴趣日益浓厚,不过文献中报道的临床经验较少。本研究的目的是比较采用自体腘绳肌腱进行ACL重建、经中央置入可吸收螺钉和套管进行胫骨固定的患者与采用偏心置入可吸收加压螺钉及辅助钉固定相结合的患者的临床和影像学结果。
90例接受自体腘绳肌腱单束一期孤立ACL重建且采用相同股骨固定方式的患者,被随机分为两组,一组采用中央置入可吸收螺钉和套管(BioIntrafix)进行胫骨固定(A组),另一组采用偏心置入可吸收加压螺钉(BioRCI)和两个不可吸收钉进行胫骨固定(B组)。后者多年来一直是我们的标准固定方法。两组均进行了临床评估(膝关节损伤和骨关节炎疗效评分(KOOS)、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分、KT-2000™双侧差值)和影像学分析,随访时间最短为2年。
两组患者均实现了令人满意的疼痛缓解和功能改善,临床和影像学方面均无显著差异。采用螺钉/套管胫骨固定的患者无需进一步手术。7例采用螺钉/钉胫骨固定的患者在初次手术后数年因鹅足刺激或局部感染需要手术取出固定装置。两组的其他参数,如隧道扩大情况,在统计学上无差异。
据报道,采用螺钉/套管胫骨固定进行ACL重建具有良好的临床和影像学结果,与螺钉/钉固定效果相当。两种胫骨固定方法均未出现与固定失败相关的情况。与采用标准胫骨固定的患者相比,采用螺钉/套管固定系统治疗的患者记录到的胫骨装置手术取出次数更少,这与局部不耐受或感染情况较少有关。