Literature DB >> 29379983

Biomechanical comparisons of current suspensory fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Cheng Jin1, Siddhartha Venkata Paluvadi1,2, SungJae Lee3, SeungJin Yoo4, Eun-Kyoo Song1, Jong-Keun Seon5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cortical suspensory devices are routinely used for femoral side fixation of soft tissue graft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of a new adjustable loop device (GraftMax®) compared with established devices (EndoButton® and TightRope®) in ACL reconstruction and to investigate whether knotting the free end of TightRope could improve biomechanical properties.
METHODS: The three cortical suspensory devices (GraftMax® Button; Conmed, EndoButton® CL; Smith & Nephew, and TightRope® RT; Arthrex) were tested under cyclic load (50-250 N for 1000 cycles) and pull-to-failure conditions at 50 mm/h in a device-only setup using a tensile testing machine. The TightRope was additionally tested with its free suture ends knotted. The statistical analyses were done with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey HSD tests.
RESULTS: There are significant differences in the load-to-failure among the devices. The EndoButton showed the highest mean failure load at 1204.7 N compared to other devices (GraftMax (914.2 N), knotted TightRope (868.1 N) and TightRope (800.1 N) (p < 0.001). The mean total displacement after 1000 cycles was 0.76 mm, 2.11 mm, 1.56 mm and 1.38 mm for the EndoButton, GraftMax, TightRope, and knotted TightRope, respectively. The EndoButton showed significantly better properties than both the GraftMax (p = 0.000) and the TightRope (p = 0.020) but not the knotted TightRope (p = n.s.) in total displacement. However, there was no significant difference between the TightRope and GraftMax (p = n.s.).
CONCLUSION: The fixed loop (EndoButton) showed significantly better mechanical properties in failure load and displacement than TightRope or GraftMax in this biomechanical study. However, the mechanical properties of the GraftMax is comparable to the TightRope. Moreover, the knotting of TightRope improved mechanical properties in total displacement more than TightRope, but not in failure load. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The biomechanical properties of the GraftMax are comparable to the TightRope. The TightRope, when knotted, shows an improvement both in load to failure and cyclic displacement, though the differences are not significant.

Keywords:  ACL reconstruction; Adjustable loop device; Biomechanics; Cortical suspension; Cyclic loading; Fixed loop device

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29379983     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3780-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  10 in total

1.  Mechanical properties of soft tissue femoral fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Christopher S Ahmad; Thomas R Gardner; Megan Groh; Johnny Arnouk; William N Levine
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2004 Apr-May       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Femoral suspension devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: do adjustable loops lengthen?

Authors:  Aaron E Barrow; Marcello Pilia; Teja Guda; Warren R Kadrmas; Travis C Burns
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 6.202

3.  A biomechanical comparison of femoral cortical suspension devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction under high loads.

Authors:  Jared S Johnson; Sean D Smith; Christopher M LaPrade; Travis Lee Turnbull; Robert F LaPrade; Coen A Wijdicks
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  Femoral cortical suspension devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative biomechanical study.

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

5.  Mechanical properties of suspensory fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of the fixed-length loop device versus the adjustable-length loop device.

Authors:  Akio Eguchi; Mitsuo Ochi; Nobuo Adachi; Masataka Deie; Atsuo Nakamae; Muhammad Andry Usman
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2014-02-16       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Instrumented measurement of anterior knee laxity in patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament disruption.

Authors:  D M Daniel; M L Stone; R Sachs; L Malcom
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1985 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Transtibial vs anatomical single bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Bekir Eray Kilinc; Adnan Kara; Yunus Oc; Haluk Celik; Savas Camur; Emre Bilgin; Yunus Turgay Erten; Turker Sahinkaya; Osman Tugrul Eren
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 6.071

8.  Biomechanical and Computed Tomography Analysis of Adjustable Femoral Cortical Fixation Devices for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in a Cadaveric Human Knee Model.

Authors:  Trevor R Born; Alison M Biercevicz; Sarath C Koruprolu; David Paller; Dave Spenciner; Paul D Fadale
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.772

9.  Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Computed Tomography Evaluation of the Tunnel Location and Angle in Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of the Anteromedial Portal and Outside-in Techniques.

Authors:  Kang-Il Kim; Sang Hak Lee; Chanil Bae; Sung Hae Bae
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-01

Review 10.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, rehabilitation, and return to play: 2015 update.

Authors:  John Nyland; Alma Mattocks; Shane Kibbe; Alaa Kalloub; Joe W Greene; David N M Caborn
Journal:  Open Access J Sports Med       Date:  2016-02-24
  10 in total
  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL Reconstruction.

Authors:  Elias Ammann; Andreas Hecker; Elias Bachmann; Jess G Snedeker; Sandro F Fucentese
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2022-05-11

Review 2.  Fixed-loop vs. adjustable-loop cortical button devices for femoral fixation in ACL reconstruction - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Simone Birkebæk Elmholt; Torsten Grønbech Nielsen; Martin Lind
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2022-10-21

3.  Systematic Review of Fixed- Versus Adjustable-Loop Femoral Cortical Suspension Devices for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Letter to the Editor.

Authors:  XiaoKe Shang; Jian Li; Qi Li
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-05-31

4.  In Vitro Testing of 2 Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspensory Fixation Systems Versus Interference Screw for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Gerardo L Garcés; Oscar Martel; Alejandro Yánez; Ignacio Manchado-Herrera; Luci M Motta
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-09-28

5.  ACL reconstruction with femoral and tibial adjustable versus fixed-loop suspensory fixation: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Sebastian Schützenberger; F Keller; S Grabner; D Kontic; D Schallmayer; M Komjati; C Fialka
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 2.677

Review 6.  Adjustable Loop Femoral Cortical Suspension Devices for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sarvpreet Singh; Shalin Shaunak; Sebastian C K Shaw; John L Anderson; Vipul Mandalia
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 1.251

7.  Suspension button constructs restore posterior knee laxity in solid tibial avulsion of the posterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Philipp Forkel; Louis Buchmann; Jan J Lang; Rainer Burgkart; Andreas B Imhoff; Julian Mehl; Matthias J Feucht; Patrizia Lutz; Andreas Schmitt
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 4.342

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.