A Long-term Comparison of Outcome of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bioabsorbable Interference Screw and Endobutton on Femur.

Abstract

Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a very commonly done procedure in recent times. There is a need for a long-term outcome study of ACL reconstruction with a comparison between different types of fixation techniques. The graft fixation methods vary from aperture fixation (interference screws) to suspensory fixation methods (endobutton). Failure of graft incorporation and the development of tunnel widening (TW) after ACL reconstruction have been frequently reported in the long term in present literature. TW especially complicates revision ACL surgery. This is a prospective non-randomized clinical study of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction comparing the functional results between aperture fixation and suspensory fixation. Two groups of 14 patients who underwent autogenous hamstring ACL reconstruction with a minimum of 2-year follow-up evaluation were included in the study. The first group underwent aperture fixation with bioabsorbable interference screw at tibial and femoral side. The second group underwent suspensory fixation with endobutton fixation on the femoral side and biointerference screw on the tibial side. Both group patients were examined clinically before surgery, and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and at 2 years. They were compared for functional outcome with Tegner Lysholm knee score. There was a significant improvement in functional outcome in both the groups for base and at 3 months, also for 3 months and 6 months but for 6 months-1 year. Group 2 is almost significant. This improvement in outcome in Group 2 is consistent from 1 year to 2 years. In our prospective study comparing the outcomes of functional outcomes of ACL reconstruction with aperture fixation versus suspensory fixation on the femur, which was evaluated using Tegner Lysholm knee score over a period of 2 years, suspensory fixation was found to be better. However, further studies involving a larger series of cases are required for a better evaluation of the outcome.