Clin Orthop Surg.  2018 Jun;10(2):157-166. 10.4055/cios.2018.10.2.157.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Results of Outside-in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Fixed- and Adjustable-Length Loop Cortical Fixation

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 2Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Barunbone Hospital, Seoul, Korea. colorko@naver.com
  • 3Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Cortical suspensory femoral fixation is commonly performed for graft fixation to the femur in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring tendons. The purpose of this study was to compare graft healing in the femoral tunnel, implant-related failure, and clinical results between fixed- and adjustable-length loop devices in outside-in ACL reconstruction.
METHODS
A total of 109 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using the outside-in technique from December 2010 to July 2014 were included. For femoral graft fixation, a fixed-length loop device was used in 48 patients (fixed-loop group) and an adjustable-length loop device was used in 61 patients (adjustable-loop group). For evaluation of graft healing in the femoral tunnel, magnetic resonance imaging was performed at postoperative 6 months and the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the tendon graft and tendon-bone interface in the femoral bone tunnel were evaluated. The presence of synovial fluid was evaluated to determine loop lengthening at the femoral tunnel exit. Clinical results assessed using International Knee Documentation Committee score, Tegner-Lysholm Knee Scoring scale, and knee instability tests were compared between groups.
RESULTS
The SNRs of the tendon graft and tendon-bone interface were not statistically different between groups. The presence of synovial fluid at the femoral exit showed no statistical difference between groups. Clinical results were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The adjustable-length loop device provided comparable graft healing, implant-related failure, and clinical results with the fixed-length loop device, allowing adaptation of the graft to the different tunnel lengths. Therefore, it could be effectively used with an adjustment according to the femoral tunnel length.

Keyword

Anterior cruciate ligament; Femoral tunnel; Suspensory fixation device; Graft healing

MeSH Terms

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction*
Anterior Cruciate Ligament*
Femur
Humans
Knee
Magnetic Resonance Imaging*
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Synovial Fluid
Tendons
Transplants

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Patient flowchart. ACL: anterior cruciate ligament.

  • Fig. 2 Postoperative X-ray. (A) Fixedlength loop device. (B) Adjustable-length loop device.

  • Fig. 3 Coronal oblique T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. (A) Presence of synovial fluid case. (B) Absence of fluid case. Arrow: presence of synovial fluid at the exit of femoral tunnel.

  • Fig. 4 Signal intensity of anterior cruciate ligament graft using the signal-to-noise quotient. (A) Tunnel aperture. (B) Tunnel midsection. (C) Tunnel exit. Arrow: tendon-bone interface, arrowhead: tendon graft.

  • Fig. 5 A wide gap between the graft end and the exit of the femoral bone tunnel. Arrow: length of wide gap.


Reference

1. Kousa P, Jarvinen TL, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Jarvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part II: tibial site. Am J Sports Med. 2003; 31(2):182–188. PMID: 12642250.
Article
2. Brown CH Jr, Wilson DR, Hecker AT, Ferragamo M. Graft-bone motion and tensile properties of hamstring and patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament femoral graft fixation under cyclic loading. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(9):922–935. PMID: 15525925.
Article
3. Lee YS, Ko TS, Ahn JH, et al. Comparison of tibial tunnel techniques in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: C-arm versus anatomic fovea landmark. Arthroscopy. 2016; 32(3):487–492. PMID: 26597550.
Article
4. Lee YS, Lee BK, Oh WS, Cho YK. Comparison of femoral tunnel widening between outside-in and trans-tibial double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22(9):2033–2039. PMID: 23851922.
Article
5. Ahn JH, Lee YS, Lee SH. Creation of an anatomic femoral tunnel with minimal damage to the remnant bundle in remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an outside-in technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2014; 3(1):e175–e179. PMID: 24749041.
Article
6. Lee YS, Lee BK, Chun DI. Flipping method of a RetroButton during ACL reconstruction with outside-in femoral drilling using a FlipCutter. Orthopedics. 2012; 35(10):861–864. PMID: 23027473.
Article
7. Kamelger FS, Onder U, Schmoelz W, Tecklenburg K, Arora R, Fink C. Suspensory fixation of grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison of 3 implants. Arthroscopy. 2009; 25(7):767–776. PMID: 19560641.
Article
8. Petre BM, Smith SD, Jansson KS, et al. Femoral cortical suspension devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41(2):416–422. PMID: 23263298.
9. Conner CS, Perez BA, Morris RP, Buckner JW, Buford WL Jr, Ivey FM. Three femoral fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of fixation on the lateral cortex versus the anterior cortex. Arthroscopy. 2010; 26(6):796–807. PMID: 20511038.
Article
10. Choi NH, Yang BS, Victoroff BN. Clinical and radiological outcomes after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: comparison between fixed-loop and adjustable-loop cortical suspension devices. Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45(4):826–831. PMID: 27881383.
Article
11. DeBerardino TM, Smith PA, Cook JL. Femoral suspension devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: letter to the editor. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42(2):NP15–NP16. PMID: 24489006.
Article
12. Eguchi A, Ochi M, Adachi N, Deie M, Nakamae A, Usman MA. Mechanical properties of suspensory fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of the fixed-length loop device versus the adjustable-length loop device. Knee. 2014; 21(3):743–748. PMID: 24613584.
Article
13. Barrow AE, Pilia M, Guda T, Kadrmas WR, Burns TC. Femoral suspension devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: do adjustable loops lengthen? Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42(2):343–349. PMID: 24158183.
14. Terauchi R, Arai Y, Hara K, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography evaluation of the bone tunnel and graft following ACL reconstruction with a hamstring tendon autograft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24(1):169–175. PMID: 25288337.
Article
15. Ma Y, Murawski CD, Rahnemai-Azar AA, Maldjian C, Lynch AD, Fu FH. Graft maturity of the reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament 6 months postoperatively: a magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of quadriceps tendon with bone block and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23(3):661–668. PMID: 25223969.
16. Hunt P, Rehm O, Weiler A. Soft tissue graft interference fit fixation: observations on graft insertion site healing and tunnel remodeling 2 years after ACL reconstruction in sheep. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006; 14(12):1245–1251. PMID: 16710731.
17. Rork PE. “Bungee cord” effect in hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction. Orthopedics. 2000; 23(3):184. PMID: 10741360.
Article
18. Miyata K, Yasuda K, Kondo E, Nakano H, Kimura S, Hara N. Biomechanical comparisons of anterior cruciate ligament: reconstruction procedures with flexor tendon graft. J Orthop Sci. 2000; 5(6):585–592. PMID: 11180923.
19. Chen CH. Graft healing in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol. 2009; 1(1):21. PMID: 19772670.
Article
20. Kanamura H, Arai Y, Hara K, et al. Quantitative evaluation of revascularization at bone tunnels and grafts with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(7):1531–1536. PMID: 26744163.
Article
21. Aydin D, Ozcan M. Evaluation and comparison of clinical results of femoral fixation devices in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2016; 23(2):227–232. PMID: 25937093.
Article
22. Lubowitz JH, Schwartzberg R, Smith P. Cortical suspensory button versus aperture interference screw fixation for knee anterior cruciate ligament soft-tissue allograft: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy. 2015; 31(9):1733–1739. PMID: 25911394.
23. Boyle MJ, Vovos TJ, Walker CG, Stabile KJ, Roth JM, Garrett WE Jr. Does adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspension loosen after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A retrospective comparative study? Knee. 2015; 22(4):304–308. PMID: 25999126.
Article
24. Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel differs at the tunnel entrance versus the tunnel exit: an effect of graft-tunnel motion? Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34(11):1790–1800. PMID: 16861579.
25. Kawakami H, Shino K, Hamada M, et al. Graft healing in a bone tunnel: bone-attached graft with screw fixation versus bone-free graft with extra-articular suture fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004; 12(5):384–390. PMID: 15042286.
Article
26. Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF. Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel: a biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75(12):1795–1803. PMID: 8258550.
Article
Full Text Links
  • CIOS
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr