Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis comparing bioabsorbable versus metal interference screw for adverse and clinical outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy volume 22, pages 142–153 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare bioabsorbable screw (BS) against metal screw (MS) primarily on adverse effects and secondarily on clinical outcomes after single-bundle primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Methods

Electronic searches were performed using search strategies meeting the mentioned purposes. Retrieved articles were selected for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting at least 1-year follow-up. Potential studies were selected under inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of biases and data extraction was completed by two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Mean difference and risk ratio with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used for continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2. Pooled treatment effects with 95 % CI were estimated using the fixed- or random-effect model where appropriate.

Results

Eleven RCTs with 878 randomly allocated patients were included, and 711 patients (81 %) with eligible follow-up time up to 8 years were analysed. Comparing with the MS group, BS group using medial hamstring graft showed evidence of larger tunnel widening on the femoral side measured from radiographs or magnetic resonance imaging, though data could not be pooled because diverse measurement methods had been used. Significantly higher rates of effusion and screw breakage, and fewer cases of complete tunnel healing were reported in the BS group. Nevertheless, functional and clinical results were not deteriorated by the presence of these adverse effects for both short- and longer-term follow-ups.

Conclusion

This is the first systematic review focusing on adverse effects of the BS, such as larger tunnel widening and higher rates of other complications. With these effects, routine use of the BS should be balanced with the advantages claimed. Cost-effectiveness is another issue, and well-designed RCTs are needed to better validate the implication.

Level of evidence

Systematic review of randomised controlled therapeutic studies, Level II.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bach BR Jr (2003) Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Arthroscopy 19(Suppl 1):14–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barber FA, Elrod BF, McGuire DA, Paulos LE (1995) Preliminary results of an absorbable interference screw. Arthroscopy 11:537–548

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benedetto KP, Fellinger M, Lim TE, Passler JM, Schoen JL, Willems WJ (2000) A new bioabsorbable interference screw: preliminary results of a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Arthroscopy 16:41–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bostman OM, Pihlajamaki HK (2000) Adverse tissue reactions to bioabsorbable fixation devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res 371:216–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bottoni CR, DeBerardino TM, Fester EW, Mitchell D, Penrod BJ (2000) An intra-articular bioabsorbable interference screw mimicking an acute meniscal tear 8 months after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 16:395–398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buelow JU, Siebold R, Ellermann A (2000) A new bicortical tibial fixation technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quadruple hamstring graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8:215–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ciccone WJ, Motz C, Bentley C, Tasto J (2001) Bioabsorbable implants in orthopaedics: new developments and clinical applications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 9:280–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clatworthy MG, Annear P, Bulow JU, Bartlett RJ (1999) Tunnel widening in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective evaluation of hamstring and patella tendon grafts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:138–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Drogset JO, Grontvedt T, Tegnender A (2005) Endoscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts fixed with bioabsorbable or metal interference screws: a prospective randomized study of the clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med 33:1160–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Drogset JO, Straume LG, Bjørkmo I, Myhr G (2011) A prospective randomized study of ACL-reconstructions using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts fixed with bioabsorbable or metal interference screws. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:753–975

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Emond CE, Woelber EB, Kurd SK, Ciccotti MG, Cohen SB (2011) A comparison of the results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bioabsorbable versus metal interference screws: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:572–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fink C, Benedetto KP, Hackl W, Hoser C, Freund MC, Rieger M (2000) Bioabsorbable polyglyconate interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective computed tomography-controlled study. Arthroscopy 16:491–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fules P, Madhav R, Goddard R, Newman-Sanders A, Mowbray M (2003) Evaluation of tibial bone tunnel enlargement using MRI scan cross-sectional area measurement after autologous hamstring tendon ACL replacement. Knee 10:87–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Getelman MH, Friedman MJ (1999) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: review articles. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 7:189–198

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hackl W, Fink C, Benedetto KP, Hoser C (2000) Transplantatfixation bei der vorderen Kreuzbandrekonstruktion: metall- vs. bioresorbierbare polyglykonat interferenzschraube –eine prospektive randomisierte studie von 40 patienten. Unfallchirurg 108:468–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JPT, Green S (ed) (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

  18. Kaeding C, Farr J, Kavanaugh T, Pedroza A (2005) A prospective randomized comparison of bioabsorbable and titanium anterior cruciate ligament interference screws. Arthroscopy 21:147–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Konan S, Haddad FS (2009) A clinical review of bioabsorbable interference screws and their adverse effects in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Knee 16:6–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Konan S, Haddad FS (2009) The unpredictable material properties of bioabsorbable PLC interference screws and their adverse effects in ACL reconstruction surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:293–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kulkarni RK, Pani KC, Neuman C, Leonard F (1966) Polylactic acid for surgical implants. Arch Surg 93:839–843

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Laxdal G, Kartus J, Eriksson BI, Faxen E, Sernert N, Karlsson J (2006) Biodegradable and metallic interference screw in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery using hamstring tendon grafts: prospective randomized study of radiographic results and clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med 34:1574–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lembeck B, Wulker N (2005) Severe cartilage damage by broken poly-L-lactic (PLLA) interference screw after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:283–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. L’Insalata JC, Klatt B, Fu FH, Harner CD (1997) Tunnel expansion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 5:234–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maak TG, Voos JE, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF (2010) Tunnel widening in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: review articles. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18:695–706

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marti C, Imhoff AB, Bahrs C, Romero J (1997) Metallic versus bioabsorbable interference screw for fixation of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a preliminary report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 5:217–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Martinek V, Friederich N (1999) Tibial and pretibial cyst formation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bioabsorbable interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy 15:317–320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Martinek V, Seil R, Lattermann C, Watkins SC, Fu FH (2001) The fate of the poly-L-Lactic interference screw after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 17:73–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Martins CAQ, Kropf EJ, Shen W, van Eck CF, Fu FH (2008) The concept of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Oper Tech Sports Med 16:104–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McGuire DA, Barber FA, Elrod BF, Paulos LE (1999) Bioabsorbable interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 15:463–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Miller MD (1998) Revision cruciate ligament surgery with retention of femoral interference screws. Arthroscopy 14:111–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moisala AS, Jarvela T, Paakkala A, Paakkala T, Kannus P, Jarvinen M (2008) Comparison of the bioabsorbable and metal screw fixation after ACL reconstruction with a hamstring autograft in MRI and clinical outcome: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1080–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Myers P, Logan M, Stokes A, Boyd K, Watts M, Phill M (2008) Bioabsorbable versus titanium interference screws with hamstring autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized trial with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 24:817–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Prodomos CC, Fu FH, Howell SM, Johnson DH, Lawhorn K (2008) Controversies in soft-tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: grafts, bundles, tunnels, fixation, and harvest. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:376–384

    Google Scholar 

  35. Prodromos CC, Han Y, Rogowski J, Joyce B, Shi K (2007) A meta-analysis of the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears as a function of gender, sport, and a knee injury–reduction regimen. Arthroscopy 23(1320–1325):e6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Quatman CE, Paterno MV, Wordeman SC, Kaeding CC (2011) Longitudinal anterior knee laxity related to substantial tibial tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament revision. Arthroscopy 27:1160–1163

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Radford MJ, Noakes J, Read J, Wood DG (2005) The natural history of a bioabsorbable interference screw used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a 4-strand hamstring technique. Arthroscopy 21:707–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program] (2011) Version 5.1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen

  39. Sassmannshausen G, Carr CF (2003) Transcutaneous migration of a tibial bioabsorbable interference screw after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 19:E133–E136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shafer BL, Simonian PT (2002) Broken poly-L-lactic acid interference screw after ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 18:E35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shen C, Jiang SD, Jiang LS, Dai LY (2010) Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 26:705–713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Stahelin AC, Weiler A, Rufenacht H, Hoffman R, Geissmann A, Feinstein R (1997) Clinical degradation and biocompatibility of different bioabsorbable interference screws: a report of six cases. Arthroscopy 13:238–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stener S, Ejerhed L, Sernert N, Laxdal G, Rostgard-Christensen L, Kartus J (2010) A long-term, prospective, randomized study comparing biodegradable and metal interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: radiographic results and clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med 38:1598–1605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Warden WH, Chooljian D, Jackson DW (2008) Ten-year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up of bioabsorbable poly-L-lactic acid interference screws after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 24:370.e1–370.e3

    Google Scholar 

  45. Webster KE, Feller JA, Hameister KA (2001) Bone tunnel enlargement following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomised comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts with 2-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:86–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Weiler A, Windhagen HJ, Raschke MJ, Laumeyer A, Hoffmann RF (1998) Biodegradable interference screw fixation exhibits pull-out force and stiffness similar to titanium screws. Am J Sports Med 26:119–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Werner A, Wild A, Ilg A, Karauspe R (2002) Secondary intraarticular dislocation of a broken bioabsorbable interference screw after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10:30–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank MS Busagorn Ussahgij, the librarian of the Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, for helping us in search strategy and retrieving literatures. We also thank the Cochrane Collaboration following the use of the Cochrane software for systematic reviews, Review Manager, as non-Cochrane mode as well as Thai Cochrane Network and Thailand Research Fund (Senior Research Scholar Programme) for assistance in methodology.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand

    Pat Laupattarakasem & Weerachai Kosuwon

  2. Department of Biostatistics and Demography, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand

    Malinee Laopaiboon

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Srinagarind Hospital Endoscopy Center, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand

    Wiroon Laupattarakasem

Authors
  1. Pat Laupattarakasem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malinee Laopaiboon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weerachai Kosuwon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wiroon Laupattarakasem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wiroon Laupattarakasem.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laupattarakasem, P., Laopaiboon, M., Kosuwon, W. et al. Meta-analysis comparing bioabsorbable versus metal interference screw for adverse and clinical outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22, 142–153 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2340-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2340-8

Keywords

search

Navigation