Comparison of Cross-Pin Versus Cortical Button Femoral Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstrings Autograft: A Long-Term Clinical Study and Review of the Literature
Byron Chalidis Sr,Charalampos Pitsilos,Charalampos Pavlopoulos,Polychronis Papadopoulos,Ioannis Gigis,Periklis Papadopoulos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.57928
2024-04-09
Cureus
Abstract:Background Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common operative procedure and many options regarding the type of the selected graft and fixation technique have been described to date. Although many studies have addressed the issue of the optimal femoral fixation device during ACLR with a hamstring tendon (HT) autograft, no clear evidence to indicate one technique over another has been found. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term postoperative outcomes and complication rates between transfemoral Cross-pin (CP) and Endobutton-Cortical Button (CB) fixation techniques in patients undergoing ACLR with an HT autograft. Methods One hundred and seven consecutive patients underwent ACLR by using a quadruple HT autograft that was stabilized with either a CP (CP Group: 52 patients) or a CB (CB Group: 55 patients) fixation technique. The Lachman test (LT), the Pivot-shift test (PST), the side-to-side difference in anterior translation of the tibia, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the Lysholm knee scoring systems were evaluated before surgery and during long-term follow up. The femoral and tibial tunnel diameter was measured in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs after surgery and at the final follow-up. A review of the literature was also carried out to identify any differences between both techniques. Results Study groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics. The mean follow-up was 10.4 ± 1.3 and 10.6 ± 1.3 years in the CP and CB Groups, respectively (p = 0.47). In the CP Group, improvements after surgery in LT and PST from grade 2 (n=34) or 3 (n=18) to grade 0 (n = 41) or 1 (n = 11) and from grade 2 (n=36) or 3 (n = 16) to grade 0 (n = 44) or 1 (n = 8), respectively, were observed. In the CB Group, similar improvements in LT and PST scores from grade 2 (n = 40) or 3 (n = 15) to grade 0 (n = 46) or 1 (n = 9) and from grade 2 (n = 41) or 3 (n = 14) to grade 0 (n = 47) or 1 (n = 8), respectively, were observed. However, no differences between the groups (p = 0.53 for LT and p = 0.90 for PST) were noted. The mean Lysholm scores were 89.7 ± 6.8 and 90.2 ± 7.2 in the CP and CB groups, respectively (p = 0.59). Side-to-side difference improved from 9.1 ± 2.8 to 1.7 ± 1.5 mm and from 8.6 ± 2.5 to 1.6 ± 1.4 mm in the CP and CB groups, respectively (p = 0.89 between groups). According to IKDC grades, 92.1% and 91.4% of knees in the CP and CB groups, respectively were reported to be Grade A (Normal) or B (Nearly Normal) with a p = 0.7. Femoral and tibial tunnel widening was found in the last follow-up in both groups. However, there was no difference in the degree of tunnel widening among the two techniques. With respect to LT, PST, anterior drawer test, and IKDC score, none of the 15 published comparative studies demonstrated any significant differences between the two techniques and only one study detected a difference regarding the Lysholm score in favor of CP fixation. Conclusion In the long term, both CB and CP femoral stabilization techniques were shown to be associated with similar functional outcomes and low complication rates. Further large multicenter random clinical trials are still required to identify the most effective method of femoral fixation for HT autograft during ACLR surgery.