Interference screws are more likely to perform better than cortical button and cross-pin fixation for hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Purpose: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is widely accepted as the first choice of treatment for ACL injury, but there is disagreement in the literature regarding the optimal femoral fixation method. This meta-analysis assesses the evidence surrounding three common femoral fixation methods: cortical button (CB), cross-pin (CP) and interference screws (IS). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify studies with evidence level I or II that compared at least two femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft for ACL reconstruction. Ten primary outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were estimated using random-effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. Probability of ranking best (ProBest) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were used to rank all treatments. Funnel plots were used to identify publication bias and small-study effects. Results: Sixteen clinical trials were included for analysis out of 2536 retrieved studies. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed no significant differences among the three fixation methods for the ten primary outcome measures. Based on the 10 outcome measures, the IS, CB and CP had the highest ProBest in 5, 5 and 0 outcomes, and the highest SUCRA values in 5, 4 and 1 outcomes, respectively. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence, or publication bias was detected in the outcomes. Conclusion: There were no statistical differences in performance among the CP, CB and IS femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction, although the IS was more likely to perform better than CB and CP based on the analysis of outcome measures from the included studies. Level of evidence: 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]