Anterior tibial translation and patient-reported outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a tape locking screw: A 5-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: The Tape Locking Screw system (TLS) is a recognised technique used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, only a few previous studies have reported associated outcomes, all of which had been examined over a short-term period. The aim of this study was to assess the time-dependent changes in the objective and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in a group of patients with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency who have been operated on with this technique. HYPOTHESIS: Previously reported satisfactory short-term outcomes following TLS persist for several years after the operation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective observational study including 26 patients, who were followed after unilateral ACLR with TLS. Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was measured in both knees using the KT-1000 arthrometer and two PROMs: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm subjective form scores were examined preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and annually for 5 years thereafter in all patients. RESULTS: One patient suffered a rupture of the graft, and one patient had a screw loosening. Two patients were lost for follow-up, so 22 patients were the final study group. Median (25-75%) ATT side-to-side differences between the injured and uninjured sides were 4 (3,5-4)mm preoperatively, 0,75 (0-1)mm 1 year postoperatively, and 0,75 (0-1)mm 5 years after the operation (P<0.001). Median (25-75%) IKDC scores were 44.25 (35.6-55.15), 92.55 (87.08-96.6), and 95.4 (90.8-97.7) points preoperatively and 1 year (P<0.001) and 5 years postoperatively, respectively. Median (25-75%) Lysholm scores were 52 (38.75-64.5), 95.5 (94.75-99.25), and 97.5 (95-99) points preoperatively and 1 year (P<0.001) and 5 years postoperatively, respectively. DISCUSSION: ACLR with TLS might already achieve favourable outcomes 1 year postoperatively, when measured objectively (ATT) and with PROMs. These outcomes persist 5 year postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: retrospective cohort study.

In Vitro Testing of 2 Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspensory Fixation Systems Versus Interference Screw for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the mechanical strength of adjustable-loop suspension devices (ALDs) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is device dependent and if these constructs are different from those of an interference screw. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical differences of 2 types of ALDs versus an interference screw. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: ACL reconstruction was performed on porcine femurs and bovine extensor tendons with 3 types of fixation devices: interference screw, UltraButton (UB) ALD, and TightRope (TR) ALD (n = 10 for each). In addition to specimen testing, isolated testing of the 2 ALDs was performed. The loading protocol consisted of 3 stages: preload (static 150 N load for 5 minutes), cyclic load (50-250 N at 1 Hz for 1000 cycles), and load to failure (crosshead speed 50 mm/min). Displacement at different cycles, ultimate failure load, yield load, stiffness, and failure mode were recorded. RESULTS: In specimen testing, displacement of the ALDs at the 1000th cycle was similar (3.42 ± 1.34 mm for TR and 3.39 ± 0.92 mm for UB), but both were significantly lower than that of the interference screw (7.54 ± 3.18 mm) (P < .001 for both). The yield load of the UB (547 ± 173 N) was higher than that of the TR (420 ± 72 N) (P = .033) or the interference screw (386 ± 51 N; P = .013), with no significant difference between the latter 2. In isolated device testing, the ultimate failure load of the TR (862 ± 64 N) was significantly lower than that of the UB (1879 ± 126 N) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Both ALDs showed significantly less displacement in cyclic loading at ultimate failure than the interference screw. The yield load of the UB was significantly higher than that of the other 2. The ultimate failure occurred at a significantly higher load for UB than it did for TR in isolated device testing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both UB and TR provided stronger fixation than an interference screw. Although difficult to assess, intrinsic differences in the mechanical properties of these ALDs may affect clinical outcomes.