One of the most essential success factors in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the advent of the interference screw for securing the graft tissue inside the bone tunnel. During the early era, screws were primarily metallic, which was appropriate for grafts with bony ends such as bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) composites. Later, when grafts with soft tissue ends such as medial hamstring (semitendinosus and gracilis) tendons (MHT) were popularized, development of the nonmetallic screw provided an alternate choice.
The key revolution of the bioabsorbable screw (BS) is the use of synthetic materials expected to overcome many disadvantages posed by the metal screw (MS). These include graft or suture damage while applying the screw, ferromagnetic artifacts shown in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), concerns about reoperation to remove the hardware, and management of the resulting socket defect in revision surgery. BSs are supplied in many polymeric forms of alpha-polyesters or poly-(alpha-hydroxy) acids. Primary industrial products are made of poly- L -lactic acid (PLLA), later by polyglycolic acid (PGA), copolymers of PGA/polylactic acid (PLA), stereoisomers of PLA such as poly-D-lactic acid, poly- DL -lactic acid (PDLLA), poly- L – D -lactic acid, and so on. Current BSs are available in different formulas and might be combined with osteoconductive ceramic constituents such as β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) or hydroxyapatite in the form of biocomposite screws.
Theoretically, these biomaterials could be engineered to optimize their biomechanical properties, biocompatibility, biodegradation characteristics, osteoconductivity, potential toxicity, and histologic effects. In addition, being a nonmetallic material lessens distortion in cases in which MRI is required for postoperative assessment.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been reported to date by including similar sets of randomized clinical trials comparing both types of screws used in various ACL reconstruction techniques. Adverse events and clinical results are quite analogous in these reviews.
To date, many case reports or case series have described various adverse events after the use of BSs ( Table 75.1 ), while similar effects are rarely stated for the counterpart metallic implants.
First Author(s) | Publication Year | Publication Type ∗ | Screw Material ∗∗ | Common Complications | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Breakage | Migration | Cyst Formation | Prolonged Effusion/Synovitis | Delayed Bone Ingrowth | Tunnel Widening | Remark ∗∗∗ (The Proportion Annotates Number of Events per Studied Population and the Time Indicates Postoperative Period) | ||||
Barber | 1995 | RCT | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Marti | 1997 | Retrospective | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Stahelin | 1997 | Case report | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
PDLLA/PGA | x |
| ||||||||
Lajtai and Humer | 1999 | Case series | PDLLG | x | x |
| ||||
Lajtai and Noszian | 1999 | Case series | PDLLG | x | x |
| ||||
Martinek | 1999 | Case report | PDLLA | x |
| |||||
McGuire | 1999 | RCT | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
Benedetto | 2000 | RCT | PGA/TMC | x | x |
| ||||
Bottoni | 2000 | Case report | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Buelow | 2000 | Prospective | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
Martinek | 2001 | Case report | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Bach | 2002 | Prospective | PGA/TMC | x | x | x |
| |||
Malhan | 2002 | Case report | PLLA/TCP | x |
| |||||
Werner | 2002 | Case report | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
MacDonald | 2003 | Case report | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Sassmannshausen | 2003 | Case report | PLLA | x | x | x |
| |||
Kaeding | 2005 | RCT | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Lembeck | 2005 | Case report | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Radford | 2005 | Case series | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
Laxdal | 2006 | RCT | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Baums | 2006 | Case report | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
Tecklenburg | 2006 | Prospective | PLLA/HA, PLLA/TCP | x | x |
| ||||
Thaunat | 2006 | Case report | PGA/TMC | x | x |
| ||||
Appelt | 2007 | Case report | PLLA | x | x | x |
| |||
Busfield | 2007 | Case report | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Maletis | 2007 | RCT | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Thaunat | 2007 | Case report | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
Dujardin | 2008 | Case report | PLC | x |
| |||||
Moisala | 2008 | RCT | PDLLA/TMC | x | x | x |
| |||
Myers | 2008 | RCT | PLLA/HA | x | x |
| ||||
Sharma | 2008 | Case report | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Warden | 2008 | Prospective | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Gawęda | 2009 | Comparative | PLLA | x | x | x |
| |||
Hall | 2009 | Case report | PLLA/PGA | x | x |
| ||||
Umar | 2009 | Case report | PLLA | x |
| |||||
Foldager | 2010 | Case series | PLC | x | x |
| ||||
Sadat-Ali | 2010 | Case report | PLLA/DLA | x |
| |||||
Bourke | 2013 | RCT | PDLLG/C | x | x | x |
| |||
PLG/TCP | x | x | x |
| ||||||
Pereira | 2013 | Systematic review | PLLA based | x |
| |||||
Shen | 2013 | Case report | PLLA | x | x |
| ||||
Ramsingh | 2014 | Case series | PLLA/TCP | x |
| |||||
Watson | 2015 | Retrospective | PDLLA/BCP | x |
|