Raul Mayr1, Christian Heinz Heinrichs1, Martin Eichinger1, Vinzenz Smekal2, Werner Schmoelz1, René Attal3. 1. Department of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. 2. AUVA Trauma Center Klagenfurt, Waidmannsdorferstrasse 35, 9021, Klagenfurt, Austria. 3. Department of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. rene.attal@uki.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Performing all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using cortical button fixation, the tendon graft has to be secured in a closed loop with sutures. In the present study, the graft secured with four sutures was compared with two reduced-suture material graft preparation techniques. METHODS: A bovine tendon graft folded over two adjustable-length loop cortical button devices was secured using the following techniques: 1, four buried-knot sutures; 2, two sutures on the tibial end only; and 3, two sutures on the tibial graft end with additional suspension on the tibial cortical button. Each group consisted of eight specimens and underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure test. RESULTS: The least graft elongation after cyclic loading was observed for the graft with four sutures (6.1 ± 0.6 mm), followed by the graft with two sutures and additional suspension (6.3 ± 0.8 mm) and the graft with two sutures (7.0 ± 0.7 mm). The difference in graft elongation between four sutures and only two sutures was significant (P < 0.05). The ultimate failure loads were highest for the graft with two sutures and additional suspension (801 ± 107 N), followed by the graft with four sutures (766 ± 70 N), and the graft with two sutures (699 ± 87 N). No significant (n.s.) differences were observed between the ultimate failure loads in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: For the reduction in suture material to two sutures, additional suspension can be used in order to reduce the graft lengthening. Performing a suture-reducing graft can save operating time and costs. However, each of the three all-inside button graft techniques showed considerable graft elongation indicating a risk of graft lengthening in the early postoperative period.
PURPOSE: Performing all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using cortical button fixation, the tendon graft has to be secured in a closed loop with sutures. In the present study, the graft secured with four sutures was compared with two reduced-suture material graft preparation techniques. METHODS: A bovine tendon graft folded over two adjustable-length loop cortical button devices was secured using the following techniques: 1, four buried-knot sutures; 2, two sutures on the tibial end only; and 3, two sutures on the tibial graft end with additional suspension on the tibial cortical button. Each group consisted of eight specimens and underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure test. RESULTS: The least graft elongation after cyclic loading was observed for the graft with four sutures (6.1 ± 0.6 mm), followed by the graft with two sutures and additional suspension (6.3 ± 0.8 mm) and the graft with two sutures (7.0 ± 0.7 mm). The difference in graft elongation between four sutures and only two sutures was significant (P < 0.05). The ultimate failure loads were highest for the graft with two sutures and additional suspension (801 ± 107 N), followed by the graft with four sutures (766 ± 70 N), and the graft with two sutures (699 ± 87 N). No significant (n.s.) differences were observed between the ultimate failure loads in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: For the reduction in suture material to two sutures, additional suspension can be used in order to reduce the graft lengthening. Performing a suture-reducing graft can save operating time and costs. However, each of the three all-inside button graft techniques showed considerable graft elongation indicating a risk of graft lengthening in the early postoperative period.
Authors: Chad J Micucci; Darren A Frank; John Kompel; Matthew Muffly; Patrick J Demeo; Gregory T Altman Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Benjamin M Petre; Sean D Smith; Kyle S Jansson; Peter-Paul de Meijer; Thomas R Hackett; Robert F LaPrade; Coen A Wijdicks Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Bruce D Beynnon; Robert J Johnson; Braden C Fleming; Pekka Kannus; Michael Kaplan; John Samani; Per Renström Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.284
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
Authors: Meghan W Richardson; Nicholas D Tsouris; Chaudry R Hassan; Justen H Elbayar; Yi-Xian Qin; David E Komatsu; Angelo V Rizzi; James M Paci Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Carla Alexandra Madaíl; Maria de Fátima Vaz; Pedro Miguel Amaral; José Guimarães Consciência; Alcindo Lucas Silva Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jan Theopold; Stefan Schleifenbaum; Alexander Georgi; Michael Schmidt; Ralf Henkelmann; Georg Osterhoff; Pierre Hepp Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: George Kyriakopoulos; Spyros Manthas; Maria Vlachou; Leon Oikonomou; Stamatios A Papadakis; Konstantinos Kateros Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-12-18
Authors: Colter R Wichern; Kathryn C Skoglund; Joseph G O'Sullivan; Anora K Burwell; Joseph T Nguyen; Andrea Herzka; Jacqueline M Brady Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2018-10-10