Prospective randomized clinical comparison of femoral transfixation versus bioscrew fixation in hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction--a preliminary report.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to clinically evaluate hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-reconstruction using femoral fixation with bioresorbable interference screws and with a bioresorbable transfixation device.


OBJECTIVE
The ACL-reconstruction using the transfixation device at the femoral side leads to less knee laxity and therefore to a better clinical outcome for the patient.


METHODS
Prospective randomized clinical outcome study.


METHODS
From February 2002 to December 2002, a total of 68 patients with hamstring ACL reconstruction using a femoral fixation once with TransFix (n=38; m:22 and f:16; median age=28.5 range 15-47) and the second with bioscrew (BS) (n=30; m:20, f:10; median age=25.5 range 13-61) completed the follow-up period. Patients in each group got a clinical assessment at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. The measurement of anterior translation of the tibia has been performed using the Rolimeter device.


RESULTS
No significant differences in the knee laxity testing using the Rolimeter device were seen between both groups and over time within these groups. Ninety percent of all patients had functionally normal or near normal International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee ligament ratings. The TF-group included 17 grade A, 19 grade B, and 2 grade C knees, and the BS-group had 12 grade A, 13 grade B, and 5 grade C knees. The IKDC rating, the OAK-score, the Tegner-activity-score, and the Lysholm-score did not show significant differences between the TF-group and the BS-group.


CONCLUSIONS
We disproved our hypothesis that the transfixation technique leads to less laxity and therefore to a better clinical outcome when compared to the use of BS. The clinical results in this study clarified that this technique is an effective and safe method for femoral hamstring fixation in ACL-reconstruction. However, this technique revealed no advantage compared to the bioscrew fixation technique within the short-term follow-up.
Rose
Tim
T
Department of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. tim.rose@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
Hepp
Pierre
P
Venus
Julia
J
Stockmar
Christoph
C
Josten
Christoph
C
Lill
Helmut
H
D020341:Absorbable Implants; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D016118:Anterior Cruciate Ligament / Q000601:surgery*; D000070598:Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; D005260:Female; D005269:Femur / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000601:surgery; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009984:Orthopedic Fixation Devices; D011182:Postoperative Care; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular; D013710:Tendons / Q000637:transplantation*; D016896:Treatment Outcome