CLINICAL AND FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES AFTER TWO DIFFERENT ANTERIOR CRUCRIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES: COMPARISON OF RIGIDFIX AND ENDOBUTTON

Abstract

Background: Endobutton and Rigidfix are the most used fixation methods for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). No studies were found investigating the superiority of these two methods to each other in terms of laxity, strength, gait and jumping. Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare laxity, tunnel enlargement, isokinetic strength, gait and jump in cases who had ACLR with Endobutton or Rigidfix techniques. Method: The study consisted of cases who received ACLR with Endobutton (n=13) and Rigidfix techniques (n=13). Bone tunnel enlargement was assessed on CT serial sections and anterior knee laxity was evaluated using an arthrometer. Quadriceps and Hamstring muscle strengths were measured using isokinetic system. BTS G-walk was used for gait analysis and jumping. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in anterior knee laxity, tunnel enlargement, isokinetic muscle strength and jump height between two groups. In gait analysis, only uninvolved side stride length and pelvic tilt symmetry index were significantly different between groups (p=0.045; p=0.038 respectively). Conclusions: In patients with ACLR, whichever type of fixation method was used; all of parameter values were similar. Furthermore, even after two years of surgery, functional differences were detected between the affected and unaffected legs. Also, statistically significant tunnel enlargement was found in both techniques. It was concluded that the recovery to normal condition after ACLR is not fully achieved, regardless of the fixation technique. It can be stated that this situation may cause problems in terms of the structure of the ligament and joint kinematics over time.