Author:
Luo Zhongliu,Hu Yong,Han Qingmin,Gao Zhi,Cheng Songmiao
Abstract
Abstract
Background
To determine the characteristics of cross-pin protrusion in patients treated with the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device for femoral tunnel preparation through the anteromedial portal in Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), analyse the reasons for this outcome, and identify safety hazards of this surgical technique for improvement.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ACLR using this technology at our hospital in 2018 was conducted. Patients with and without cross-pin protrusion were included in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The sex, age and imaging characteristics of the patients with cross-pin protrusion were identified, and the reasons for cross-pin protrusion were analysed.
Results
There were 64 and 212 patients in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The proportion of cross-pin protrusion cases was 23.19% (64/276). There was a significant difference in the ratio of males to females (P < 0.001, χ2 = 185.184), the mediolateral femoral condyle diameter (protrusion positive group, 70.59 ± 2.51 mm; protrusion negative group, 82.65 ± 4.16 mm; P < 0.001, t = 28.424), and the anteroposterior diameter of the lateral femoral condyle (protrusion positive group, 58.34 ± 2.89 mm; protrusion negative group, 66.38 ± 3.53 mm; P < 0.001, t = 16.615). The cross-pins did not penetrate the lateral femoral condyle cortex in patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated the cortex when the diameter was ≤ 70 mm. The cross-pins did not penetrate when the anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter was ≥ 66 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated it when the diameter was ≤ 59 mm.
Conclusion
The patients with cross-pin protrusion after reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation treatment to prepare the femoral tunnel through the anteromedial portal in ACLR were mainly females with small femoral condyles. For patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm and an anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 66 mm, there is no risk of cross-pin protrusion, so this technique can be used with confidence.
Levels of evidence
III.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Rheumatology
Reference30 articles.
1. Schindler OS. Surgery for anterior cruciate ligament deficiency: a historical perspective. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:5–47.
2. Pearle AD, McAllister D, Howell SM. Rationale for strategic graft placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: I.D.E.A.L. femoral tunnel position. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015;44:253–8.
3. Voigt C, Schönaich M, Lill H. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: state of the art. Eur J Trauma. 2006;32:332–9.
4. Colvin A, Sharma C, Parides M, Glashow J. What is the best femoral fixation of hamstring autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A meta-analysis Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:1075–81.
5. Rose T, Hepp P, Venus J, Stockmar C, Josten C, Lill H. Prospective randomized clinical comparison of femoral transfixation versus bioscrew fixation in hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction–a preliminary report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:730–8.