A Prospective Comparison of 3 Hamstring ACL Fixation Devices-Rigidfix, BioScrew, and Intrafix-Randomized Into 4 Groups With 2 Years of Follow-Up

Background: New devices for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are released to clinical use without clinical follow-up data. Hypothesis: There is similar clinical outcome after either cross-pin or absorbable interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons. Study Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 120 patients were randomized into 4 different groups (30 each) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons: femoral Rigidfix cross-pin and Intrafix tibial expansion sheath with a tapered expansion screw; Rigidfix femoral and BioScrew interference screw tibial fixation, BioScrew femoral and Intrafix tibial fixation; or BioScrew fixation into both tunnels. The evaluation methods were clinical examination, knee scores, and instrumented laxity measurements. Results: Ten patients were completely lost to follow-up and c revisions were done before the 2-year follow-up, leaving 107 of 120 (89%) patients for analysis. No statistically significant differences between the groups were seen 2 years postoperatively, and all but 2 patients in the Rigidfix/Intrafix and Rigidfix/BioScrew groups, respectively, were classified into International nee Documentation Committee A or B categories. A revision reconstruction was performed before the 2-year follow-up in 2 cases after a high-energy injury caused a rerupture (1 in Rigidfix/Intrafix and a in BioScrew/BioScrew groups). In addition, there were 4 nontraumatic failures revised before the 2-year follow-up (2 in Rigidfix/Intrafix and a each in Rigidfix/BioScrew and BioScrew/BioScrew). Conclusion: There were no statistically or clinically relevant differences in the results 2 years postoperatively, and all 4 techniques improved patient performance.