Outcomes of RigidFix Cross Pin Fixation in Femoral and Tibial Tunnel for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Abstract

Objectives:: There is no clear consensus so far on which fixation method is most favorable for the tibial tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the outcome of RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel and to explore the advantages of RigidFix applied both in the femoral and tibial tunnel with hamstring tendon graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Methods:: This retrospective study included 53 patients (male/female, 45/8) who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons between January 2013 and December 2017 at our institute. The participants in group A (n = 36) received anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with RigidFix cross pins fixation in both femoral and tibial tunnels, while those in group B (n = 17) with RigidFix cross pins fixation in the femoral tunnel and Interference screw fixation in the tibial tunnel. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form 2000 (IKDC2000) score, Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity score and the side-to-side difference were compared at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. The graft diameter, number of strands in graft and the average diameter of each strand were also compared between the two groups. The categorical parameters were analyzed by chi-square test and the continuous variables conforming to a normal distribution were analyzed by Student's t-test.

Results:: At 2 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.61 ± 0.55), side-to-side difference (1.50 ± 0.58) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (88.81 ± 3.88), Tegner activity score (6.14 ± 0.60) in group A were significantly higher than that in group B. At 5 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.64 ± 0.68), side-to-side difference (1.73 ± 0.63) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (89.09 ± 3.85), Tegner activity score (6.58 ± 0.94) in group A were slso significantly higher than that in group B. There was statistical difference in the change of the side-to-side difference between the two groups (group A vs. B, 0.22 ± 0.08 vs. 0.34 ± 0.11, p < 0.001). There were also statistical differences in the graft diameter (group A vs. B, 7.83 ± 0.74 vs. 7.41 ± 0.51, p = 0,038), number of strands in graft (5.67 ± 0.72 vs. 4.00 ± 0.00, p < 0.001) and the average diameter of each strand (1.41 ± 0.22 vs. 1.85 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) between the two groups.

Conclusion:: RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can achieve better 5-year results when compared with the interference screw, and the hamstring tendon can be folded into a thicker graft when RigidFix cross pins were applied in both femoral and tibial tunnels.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction / Cross pins / Fixation / Interference screw / RigidFix

References

[1] Runer A, Keeling L, Wagala N, et al. Current trends in graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction – part I: anatomy, biomechanics, graft incorporation and fixation. J Exp Orthop. 2023;10(1):37.

[2] Verhagen S, Dietvorst M, Delvaux E, et al. Clinical outcomes of different autografts used for all-epiphyseal, partial epiphyseal or transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients – a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24(1):630.

[3] Prentice HA, Lind M, Mouton C, et al. Patient demographic and surgical characteristics in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a description of registries from six countries. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(11):716–722.

[4] Tapasvi S, Shekhar A. Revision ACL reconstruction: principles and practice. Indian J Orthop. 2021;55(2):263–275.

[5] Hoogeslag RAG, Veld RH I't, Brouwer RW, et al. Acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: repair or reconstruction? Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(7):1779–1787.

[6] Hagemans F, Jonkers F, Van Dam M, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon graft and femoral cortical button fixation at minimum 20-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(12):2962–2969.

[7] Costa GG, Perelli S, Grassi A, et al. Minimizing the risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in athletes. A narrative review of the current evidence. J Exp Orthop. 2022;9(1):26.

[8] El-Azab H, Moursy M, Mohamed MA, et al. A comparison of the outcomes of anterior curciate ligament reconstruction with large-size graft versus reconstruction with average-size graft combined with extraarticular tenodesis. Injury. 2023;54(3):976–982.

[9] Colombet P, Graveleau N, Jambou S. Incorporation of hamstring grafts within the tibial tunnel after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: magnetic resonance imaging of suspensory fixation versus interference screws. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(11):2838–2845.

[10] Yari SS, El Naga AN, Patel A, et al. TightRope versus biocomposite interference screw for fixation in allograft ACL reconstruction: prospective evaluation of osseous integration and patient outcomes. JB & JS Open Access. 2020;5(2):e0057.

[11] Nie S, Zhou S, Huang W. Femoral fixation methods for hamstring graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a network meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. PloS One. 2022;17(9):e0275097.

[12] Kocabey Y, Yıldırım C, Erden T, et al. Tibial press-fit fixation technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech. 2023;12(5):e737–e743.

[13] Pereira VL, Medeiros JV, Nunes GRS, et al. Tibial-graft fixation methods on anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a literature review. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2021;33(1):7.

[14] Teo WW, Yeoh CS, Wee TH. Tibial fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Surg. 2017;25(1):2309499017699743.

[15] Peez C, Greßmann M, Raschke MJ, et al. The bone bridge for tibial ACL graft fixation: a biomechanical analysis of different tibial fixation methods for ACL reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2023;11(1):23259671221143478.

[16] Chevallier R, Klouche S, Gerometta A, et al. Bioabsorbable screws, whatever the composition, can result in symptomatic intra-osseous tibial tunnel cysts after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;27(1):76–85.

[17] Ramsingh V, Prasad N, Lewis M. Pre-tibial reaction to biointerference screw in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2014;21(1):91–94.

[18] Almeida A, Roveda G, Valin MR, et al. Complications of the screw/washer tibial fixation technique for knee ligament reconstruction. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition). 2010;45(5):409–414.

[19] Barbosa NC, Campos JP, Capelão V, et al. A comprehensive scoping review of tibial cysts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Exp Orthop. 2021;8(1):40.

[20] Oh D, Lee AD, Smith A. Symptomatic tibial tunnel ganglion cyst presenting four years following an ACL hamstring autograft reconstruction: a case report of a rare complication of ACL surgery. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2022;66(3):293–299.

[21] Smith PA, Piepenbrink M, Smith SK, et al. Adjustable- versus fixed-loop devices for femoral fixation in ACL reconstruction: an in vitro full-construct biomechanical study of surgical technique-based tibial fixation and graft preparation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(4):2325967118768743.

[22] Boutsiadis A, Panisset JC, Devitt BM, et al. Anterior laxity at 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is comparable when using adjustable-loop suspensory fixation and interference screw fixation. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(10):2366–2375.

[23] Chivot M, Harrosch S, Kelberine F, et al. Pull-out strength of four tibial fixation devices used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop Traumatol: Surg Res. 2018;104(2):203–207.

[24] Metso L, Bister V, Sandelin J, et al. A prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices-rigidfix, bioscrew, and intrafix-randomized into 4 groups with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):254.

[25] Yang D, Wang F, Zhang Q, et al. Research progress of tibial-graft fixation methods on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2023;37(9):1162–1168.

[26] Ra HJ, Kim HS, Choi JY, et al. Comparison of the ceiling effect in the Lysholm score and the IKDC subjective score for assessing functional outcome after ACL reconstruction. Knee. 2014;21(5):906–910.

[27] Spragg LM, Prentice HA, Morris A, et al. Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(11):3518–3526.

[28] Teng Y, Zhang X, Da L, et al. Whether sutures reduce the graft laceration caused by interference screw in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A biomechanical study in vitro. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):571.

[29] Taketomi S. Editorial commentary: tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may increase laxity and complicate revision. Arthrosc - J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2021;37(8):2564–2566.

[30] Liu D, Cai ZJ, Lu WH, et al. Eccentrically widened bone tunnels after all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a computed tomography and three-dimensional model-based analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023;31(6):2374–2385.

[31] Zhu J, Marshall B, Tang X, et al. ACL graft with extra-cortical fixation rotates around the femoral tunnel aperture during knee flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(1):116–123.

[32] Björkman P, Sandelin J, Harilainen A. A randomized prospective controlled study with 5-year follow-up of cross-pin femoral fixation versus metal interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(8):2353–2359.

[33] Frosch S, Rittstieg A, Balcarek P, et al. Bioabsorbable interference screw versus bioabsorbable cross pins: influence of femoral graft fixation on the clinical outcome after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2251–2256.

[34] Persson A, Gifstad T, Lind M, et al. Graft fixation influences revision risk after ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(2):204–210.

[35] Noh JH, Lee JW. One-year serial follow-up magnetic resonance imaging study of RigidFix for femoral fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2017;29(3):203–209.

[36] Ibrahim SA, Abdul Ghafar S, Marwan Y, et al. Intratunnel versus extratunnel autologous hamstring double-bundle graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of 2 femoral fixation procedures. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):161–168.

[37] Snaebjörnsson T, Hamrin Senorski E, Svantesson E, et al. Graft fixation and timing of surgery are predictors of early anterior cruciate ligament revision: a cohort study from the Swedish and Norwegian knee ligament registries based on 18,425 patients. JB & JS Open Access. 2019;4(4):e0037.

[38] Liu YJ, Li HF, Wang JL, et al. RIGIDfix tibial and femur cross pin system used for hamstring grafted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009;89(29):2034–2037.

[39] Qi W, Liu Y, Xue J, et al. Applying cross-pin system in both femoral and tibial fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendons. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(5):e397–e402.

[40] Wallace M, Bedi A, Lesniak BP, et al. What effect does anterior cruciate ligament tibial guide orientation have on tibial tunnel length? Arthroscopy. 2011;27(6):803–808.

[41] Chiang ER, Ma HL, Wang ST, et al. Hamstring graft sizes differ between Chinese and Caucasians. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(5):916–921.

[42] Xie G, Huangfu X, Zhao J. Prediction of the graft size of 4-stranded semitendinosus tendon and 4-stranded gracilis tendon for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Chinese Han patient study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1161–1166.

[43] Alomar AZ, Nasser ASB, Kumar A, et al. Hamstring graft diameter above 7 mm has a lower risk of failure following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(1):288–297.

[44] Bourgeault-Gagnon Y, Leang AK, Bédard S, et al. A partial-thickness quadriceps autograft reliably augments the size of the hamstring graft during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022;4(6):e2005–e2009.

[45] Rovere G, Stramazzo L, Romeo M, et al. Hamstring graft preparation for ACL reconstruction. Orthop Rev. 2022;14(5):38408.

[46] Taylor KA, Cutcliffe HC, Queen RM, et al. In vivo measurement of ACL length and relative strain during walking. J Biomech. 2013;46(3):478–483.

[47] Yoo Y-S, Jeong W-S, Shetty NS, et al. Changes in ACL length at different knee flexion angles: an in vivo biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;18(3):292–297.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2023 2023 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.