Literature DB >> 25767269

Biomechanical comparison of 2 anterior cruciate ligament graft preparation techniques for tibial fixation: adjustable-length loop cortical button or interference screw.

Raul Mayr1, Christian Heinz Heinrichs1, Martin Eichinger1, Christian Coppola1, Werner Schmoelz1, René Attal2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cortical button fixation at the femoral side and interference screws within the tibial bone tunnel are widely used for anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation. Using a bone socket instead of a full tunnel allows cortical button fixation on the tibial side as well. If adjustable-length loop cortical button devices are used for femoral and tibial fixation, the tendon graft has to be secured with sutures in a closed tendon loop. The increased distance of fixation points and potential slippage of the tendon strands at the securing sutures might lead to greater risk of postoperative graft elongation when compared with conventional graft preparation with tibial interference screw fixation. HYPOTHESIS: Compared with an anterior cruciate ligament graft with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation, a graft with tibial interference screw fixation will show less graft elongation during cyclic loading and lower ultimate failure loads. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation and grafts with tibial interference screw fixation were biomechanically tested in calf tibiae (n = 10 per group). Femoral fixation was equivalent for both groups, using an adjustable-length loop cortical button. Specimens underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure test.
RESULTS: Grafts with screw fixation showed significantly less initial elongation (cycles 1-5: 1.46 ± 0.26 mm), secondary elongation (cycles 6-1000: 1.87 ± 0.67 mm), and total elongation (cycles 1-1000: 3.33 ± 0.83 mm) in comparison with grafts with button fixation (2.47 ± 0.26, 3.56 ± 0.39, and 6.03 ± 0.61 mm, respectively) (P < .001). While pull-out stiffness was significantly higher for grafts with screw fixation (309.5 ± 33.2 vs 185.6 ± 16.4 N/mm) (P < .001), grafts with button fixation were able to withstand significantly higher ultimate failure loads (908 ± 74 vs 693 ± 119 N) (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation resulted in higher graft elongation during cyclic loading and showed higher ultimate failure loads in comparison with conventional graft preparation with tibial interference screw fixation at time zero. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this biomechanical study suggest that grafts with tibial interference screw fixation provide better knee stability at time zero because of reduced graft elongation and greater stiffness in comparison with grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation.
© 2015 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  all-inside; anterior cruciate ligament; biomechanics; cortical fixation; interference screw; reconstruction

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25767269     DOI: 10.1177/0363546515574062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  21 in total

1.  A Biomechanical Analysis of Tibial Fixation Methods in Hamstring-Graft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  H Fogel; A Golz; A Burleson; M Muriuki; R Havey; G Carandang; A Patwardhan; P Tonino
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2019

2.  Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft.

Authors:  Lindsey M Spragg; Heather A Prentice; Andrew Morris; Tadashi T Funahashi; Gregory B Maletis; Rick P Csintalan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  All-inside ACL reconstruction: How does it compare to standard ACL reconstruction techniques?

Authors:  Alexander J Connaughton; Andrew G Geeslin; Christopher W Uggen
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2017-03-19

4.  Adjustable buttons for ACL graft cortical fixation partially fail with cyclic loading and unloading.

Authors:  J Glasbrenner; C Domnick; M J Raschke; T Willinghöfer; C Kittl; P Michel; D Wähnert; Mirco Herbort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Interference screw insertion angle has no effect on graft fixation strength for insertional Achilles tendon reconstruction.

Authors:  Ziying Wu; Hongyun Li; Shiyi Chen; Kui Ma; Shengkun Li; Peng Zhang; Yinghui Hua
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  The REVision Using Imaging to Guide Staging and Evaluation (REVISE) in ACL Reconstruction Classification.

Authors:  Darren de Sa; Raphael J Crum; Stephen Rabuck; Olufemi Ayeni; Asheesh Bedi; Michael Baraga; Alan Getgood; Scott Kaar; Eric Kropf; Craig Mauro; Devin Peterson; Dharmesh Vyas; Volker Musahl; Bryson P Lesniak
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 2.757

7.  Strength of interference screw fixation of meniscus prosthesis matches native meniscus attachments.

Authors:  M K Bartolo; E Provaggi; K K Athwal; S Newman; M A Accardi; D Dini; A Williams; A A Amis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 4.114

8.  Biomechanical Properties of a Novel Biodegradable Magnesium-Based Interference Screw.

Authors:  Marco Ezechieli; Hanna Meyer; Arne Lucas; Patrick Helmecke; Christoph Becher; Tilman Calliess; Henning Windhagen; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2016-06-27

9.  Adjustable- Versus Fixed-Loop Devices for Femoral Fixation in ACL Reconstruction: An In Vitro Full-Construct Biomechanical Study of Surgical Technique-Based Tibial Fixation and Graft Preparation.

Authors:  Patrick A Smith; Marina Piepenbrink; Shelby K Smith; Samuel Bachmaier; Asheesh Bedi; Coen A Wijdicks
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-04-24

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.