Open AccessFunctional Outcomes and Subsequent Surgical Procedures After Arthroscopic Suture Versus Screw Fixation for ACL Tibial Avulsion Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Author(s) -
ChaoJui Chang,
Tzu-Ching Huang,
Yuichi Hoshino,
Chi-Hsiu Wang,
Fa-Chuan Kuan,
Wei-Ren Su,
Chih-Kai Hong
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.329
H-Index - 35
ISSN - 2325-9671
DOI - 10.1177/23259671221085945
Subject(s) - medicine , anterior cruciate ligament , avulsion , surgery , fixation (population genetics) , meta analysis , confidence interval , relative risk , lachman test , anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction , population , environmental health
Background: Although arthroscopic screw fixation and suture fixation are mainstream interventions for displaced anterior cruciate ligament avulsion fractures of the tibia, the differences in clinical outcomes between them remain inconclusive.Purpose: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the clinical and functional outcomes between arthroscopic screw fixation and suture fixation for tibial avulsion fractures.Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Inclusion criteria were English-language articles that compared functional outcomes after screw fixation versus suture fixation for tibial avulsion fractures and had at least 1-year follow-up. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed statistically using the Mantel-Haenszel method and variance-weighted means. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with confidence intervals (CIs).Results: Of 1395 articles initially identified, we included 5 studies with 184 patients (91 patients with screw fixations and 93 patients with suture fixations). The pooled results indicated similar postoperative outcomes for screw fixation and suture fixation: Lysholm score (mean difference [MD], −0.32 [95% CI, −6.08 to 5.44]; P = .91), proportion of International Knee Documentation Committee score grade A (74% vs 74%; RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.10-3.95]; P = .63), Tegner score (MD, 0.10 [95% CI: −1.73 to 1.92]; P = .92), and Lachman test results (stable knee joint, 82% vs 82%; RR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.85-1.16; P = .90). Patients in the screw fixation group had a significantly higher overall subsequent surgery rate (46% vs 19%; RR, 2.33; 95% CI,1.51-3.60; P = .0001) and implant removal rate (44% vs 3%; RR, 8.52; 95% CI, 3.58-20.29; P < .00001) compared with those in the suture fixation group. Nonimplant-related subsequent surgery rates were similar for the 2 groups.Conclusion: The findings indicated a higher risk of subsequent surgery (RR, 2.33) and implant removal (RR, 8.52) after screw fixation when compared with suture fixation for tibial avulsion fractures. However, there were no significant differences in clinical outcome scores between the 2 techniques.