Open AccessAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring single-bundle Rigidfix technique compared with single-bundle Transfix technique
Author(s) -
Hamid Mousavi,
Meisam Mohammadi
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
advanced biomedical research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2277-9175
DOI - 10.4103/2277-9175.98566
Subject(s) - medicine , anterior cruciate ligament , lachman test , fixation (population genetics) , anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction , hamstring , pivot shift test , significant difference , surgery , orthodontics , population , environmental health
Background: Initial fixation strength is critical for the early post-operative rehabilitation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. However, even the best femoral fixation devices remain controversial. We compared the results of 2 of the femoral fixation techniques,Rigidfix and Transfix. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 patients with unilateral ACL deficiency were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. In Group A an anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed using Rigidfix technique(Mitek, Norwood,MA), Group B were treated by a single bundle using Transfix technique(Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). For tibial fixation, a bioabsorbable Intrafix interference screw was used for all the groups and the graft was fashioned from the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons in all patients. The patients were subjected to a clinical evaluation, with assessment of the anterior drawer, Lachman′s and the pivot-shift tests. They also completed the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Results: At a mean of 14 months (12-17) followup there were no significant differences concerning time between injury and range of movement between the 2 groups. However, the Rigidfix group showed significantly better results for the subjective assessment of knee function ( P = 0.002). The Lachman, anterior drawer, and pivot-shift tests also showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The IKDC scale showed no significant difference among the groups ( P < 0.001).There was no difference regarding duration of operation and cost of the operation between the 2 groups.On clinical evaluation there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. However, regardless of the technique, all knees were improved by ACL reconstruction compared with their preoperative status. Conclusion: Both techniques can be used for reconstruction of ACL. Other factors, such as psychic profile of the patients should be considered for surgery planning