Fixed-loop vs. adjustable-loop cortical button devices for femoral fixation in ACL reconstruction – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose Button implants with either a fixed-loop device (FLD) or adjustable-loop device (ALD) are used frequently in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR). Since revision ACLR is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, it is important to investigate the difference in risk of revision be...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of experimental orthopaedics 2022-10, Vol.9 (1), p.106-106, Article 106
Main Authors: Elmholt, Simone Birkebæk, Nielsen, Torsten Grønbech, Lind, Martin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Arthritis
Bias
Cartilage
Intervention
Joint and ligament injuries
Knee
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Missing data
Open access publishing
Orthopedics
Osteoarthritis
Rehabilitation
Review Paper
Software
Surgery
Surgical Orthopedics
Systematic review
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Button implants with either a fixed-loop device (FLD) or adjustable-loop device (ALD) are used frequently in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR). Since revision ACLR is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, it is important to investigate the difference in risk of revision between FLDs and ALDs. Therefore, this paper aims to systematically assess the risk of revision ACLR between ALDs and FLDs as well as secondary outcomes such as knee stability and patient reported outcomes (PROMs). Methods The online databases Embase, Medline (PubMed), and SPORTDiscus were searched, comparing FLDs and ALDs for femoral fixation in patients undergoing primary ACLR with hamstring autografts. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Due to heterogeneity a meta-analysis on revision rates were not possible. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed for the secondary outcomes and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results Fifteen cohort studies with a total of 2686 patients were included. None of the studies found a clinical difference between ALDs and FLDs in either revision rates, knee stability or PROMS. However, the quality of evidence was graded “very low” due to study designs, risk of bias, and heterogeneity. Conclusion Studies of better quality are needed to investigate the risk of revision ACLR between ALDs and FLDs. There was no difference in knee stability and PROMs between the ALDs and FLDs; however, the interpretation of these results is challenging due to low quality of evidence. Level of evidence Level III.
ISSN:2197-1153
2197-1153
DOI:10.1186/s40634-022-00544-1