Literature DB >> 22284410

Biomechanical comparison of tibial eminence fracture fixation with high-strength suture, EndoButton, and suture anchor.

Onur Hapa1, F Alan Barber, Ganim Süner, Raif Özden, Serkan Davul, Ergun Bozdağ, Emin Sünbüloğlu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To biomechanically compare anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tibial bony avulsion fixation by suture anchors, EndoButtons (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA), and high-strength sutures subjected to cyclic loading.
METHODS: Type III tibial eminence fractures were created in 49 ovine knees, and 7 different types of repairs were performed. Each repair group contained 7 specimens. The repair groups were as follows: No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex, Naples, FL); No. 2 UltraBraid (Smith & Nephew); No. 2 MaxBraid (Arthrotek, Warsaw, IN); No. 2 Hi-Fi (ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL); No. 2 OrthoCord (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA); Ti-Screw suture anchor (Arthrotek); and titanium EndoButton. These constructs were cyclically loaded (500 cycles, 0 to 100 N, 1 Hz) in the direction of the native ACL and loaded to failure (100 mm/min). Endpoints included ultimate failure load (in Newtons); pullout stiffness (in Newtons per millimeter); cyclic displacement (in millimeters) after 100 cycles, between 100 and 500 cycles, and after 500 cycles; and mode of failure. Bone density testing was performed in all knees.
RESULTS: Bone density was not different among the groups. The EndoButton group had a higher ultimate failure load than the FiberWire, UltraBraid, Hi-Fi, and suture anchor groups (P < .05). The MaxBraid and OrthoCord groups had higher failure loads than the suture anchor group (P < .05). The MaxBraid group also had a higher failure load than the Hi-Fi group (P < .05). Stiffness was not statistically different for the various tested constructs. After 100 cycles, the EndoButton group had less displacement than the FiberWire, UltraBraid, MaxBraid, and Hi-Fi groups (P < .05). The suture anchor group had less displacement than the Hi-Fi and FiberWire groups (P < .05). The displacements of the different tested constructs between 100 and 500 cycles and total displacements after 500 cycles were not statistically different. The predominant failure mode was suture rupture.
CONCLUSIONS: Under cyclic loading conditions in an ovine model, EndoButton fixation of tibial eminence fractures provided greater initial fixation strength than suture anchor fixation or fixation with various high-strength sutures except for OrthoCord. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: During initial cyclic loading of ACL tibial eminence fractures, the strength of the repair construct should be taken into consideration because conventional suture repair even with ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene sutures may not provide enough strength.
Copyright © 2012 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22284410     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.10.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  16 in total

1.  ORV Arthroscopic Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Eminence Fractures.

Authors:  Daniel M Myer; Gregory J Purnell; Paul E Caldwell; Sara E Pearson
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-09-13

2.  Management of a type two avulsion fracture of the tibial intercondylar eminence in children: arthroscopic suture fixation versus conservative immobilization.

Authors:  Chen Zhao; Qing Bi; Mingguang Bi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Biomechanical comparison of different fixation techniques for reconstruction of tibial avulsion fractures of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Marco Ezechieli; Madeline Schäfer; Christoph Becher; Antonios Dratzidis; Richard Glaab; Christian Ryf; Christof Hurschler; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Effects of suture choice on biomechanics and physeal status after bioenhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair in skeletally immature patients: a large-animal study.

Authors:  Patrick Vavken; Benedikt Proffen; Chris Peterson; Braden C Fleming; Jason T Machan; Martha M Murray
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Hybrid fixation of tibial eminence fractures in skeletally immature patients.

Authors:  Itai Gans; Oladapo M Babatunde; Theodore J Ganley
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-06-28

6.  Arthroscopic treatment of displaced tibial eminence fractures using a suspensory fixation.

Authors:  Philippe Loriaut; Pierre-Emmanuel Moreau; Patrick Loriaut; Patrick Boyer
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.251

7.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopically assisted cannulated screw fixation for tibial eminence fracture in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Chang Ho Shin; Doo Jae Lee; In Ho Choi; Tae-Joon Cho; Won Joon Yoo
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Biomechanical Comparison of Epiphyseal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Fixation Using a Cortical Button Construct Versus an Interference Screw and Sheath Construct in Skeletally Immature Cadaveric Specimens.

Authors:  Alex G Dukas; Kevin G Shea; Carl W Nissen; Elifho Obopilwe; Peter D Fabricant; Peter C Cannamela; Matthew D Milewski
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-06-13

9.  Arthroscopic tri-pulley Technology reduction and internal fixation of pediatric Tibial Eminence fracture: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Liang Zhang; Li Zhang; Jiang Zheng; Bo Ren; Xin Kang; Xian Zhang; Xiaoqian Dang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Arthroscopic Fixation for Tibial Eminence Fractures: Comparison of Double-Row and Transosseous Anchor Knot Fixation Techniques with Suture Anchors.

Authors:  Ji Li; Chuihui Liu; Zhongli Li; Yangmu Fu; Yimeng Yang; Qiang Zhang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.