| Literature DB >> 27027081 |
Mauro Batista Albano1, Paulo César Borges2, Mario Massatomo Namba3, João Luiz Vieira da Silva4, Francisco de Assis Pereira Filho5, Edmar Stieven Filho6, Jorge Eduardo Fouto Matias7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the initial resistance of fixation using the Rigid Fix(®) system, and compare it with traditional fixation methods using metal interference screws; and to evaluate the resistance of the fixation with the rigid fix system when the rotational position of the bone block is altered in the interior of the femoral tunnel.Entities:
Keywords: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft; Knee; Sheep
Year: 2015 PMID: 27027081 PMCID: PMC4799357 DOI: 10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30344-X
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ortop ISSN: 2255-4971
Figure 1Photograph of graft with bone block of 10 mm in diameter.
Figure 2Photograph demonstrating the adaptation of the Rigidfix® guide: (A) front view; (B) side view.
Figure 3Illustration demonstrating the two bone-block fixation methods using transverse pins.
Figure 4Photograph of specimen fixed using interference screw.
Figures 1-5A and 5BPhotographs showing the composition of the MTS 810 hydraulic machine.
Comparison of mean maximum loads between the methods of fixation using a metal interference screw and fixation using the RigidFix® technique to transfix the cortical and spongy bone.
| Group | N | Mean | Median | Minimum | Maximum | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interference | 20 | 653.7 | 677 | 112 | 963 | 180.79 |
| Pins/ cortical bone | 10 | 607.5 | 598.5 | 278 | 940 | 198.7 |
| Pins/ spongy bone | 10 | 710.1 | 743 | 102 | 921 | 236.09 |
Figure 6Graph comparing the maximum load values between the different fixation groups: interference screw, fixation to cortical bone and fixation to spongy bone.
P values of comparisons made in the different groups.
| Groups under comparison | p* value |
|---|---|
| Interference vs. fixed in the rigid part | 0.35 |
| Interference vs. fixed in the spongy part | 0.267 |
| Fixed in the rigid part vs. fixed in the spongy part | 0.123 |
Comparison of mean rigidity between the fixation method using a metal interference screw and the fixation method using pins transfixing to the cortical and spongy bone.
| Group | n | Mean | Median | Minimum | Maximum | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interference screw | 20 | 76.6 | 72.5 | 53 | 106 | 15.13 |
| Pin to cortical bone | 10 | 65.8 | 64.5 | 38 | 103 | 22.19 |
| Pin to spongy bone | 10 | 74.4 | 78 | 44 | 104 | 18.61 |
Comparison of p values for assessing rigidity between the fixation method using a metal interference screw and the fixation method using transverse pins to the cortical bone in one groups and spongy bone in the other group.
| Groups under comparison | p* value |
|---|---|
| Interference vs fixed in rigid part | 0.127 |
| Interference vs fixed in spongy part | 0.73 |
| Fixed in rigid part vs fixed in spongy part | 0.36 |
Types and locations of failure in the fixation method using interference screws.
| Types | Number of occurrences | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Proximal detachment | 10 | 50% |
| Distal detachment | 2 | 10% |
| Loosening of screw and/or slippage of bone block in femoral tunnel | 8 | 40% |
| Total | 20 | 100% |
Figures 1-7A and 7BPhotographs of specimens showing locations and most frequent types of failure found in the fixation method with interference screws.
Types and locations of failure in the fixation method using bioabsorbable pins fixed to the cortical bone.
| Types | Number of occurrences | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Proximal detachment | O | |
| Distal detachment | 2 | 20% |
| Fracture of bone block | 6 | 60% |
| Failure of implant in femoral tunnel | 2 | 20% |
| total | 10 | 100% |
Tipos e local de falha no método de fixação com RigidFix®, fixação na esponjosa.
| Tipos | Número de ocor-rências | Porcentagem |
|---|---|---|
| Destacamento na tot Proximal | 1 | 10% |
| Destacamento na tot Distal | 2 | 20% |
| Fratura do bloco ósseo l | 5 | 50% |
| Falha do implante no túnel femoral | 1 | 10% |
| Rompimento do tendão no 1/3 médio | 1 | 10% |
| Total | 10 | 100% |
Figures 1-8A and 8BPhotograph showing types of failure in the method with bioabsorbable pins.