Meghan W Richardson1, Nicholas D Tsouris2, Chaudry R Hassan3, Justen H Elbayar4, Yi-Xian Qin3, David E Komatsu4, Angelo V Rizzi4, James M Paci4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, U.S.A.. Electronic address: meghan.richardson@stonybrookmedicine.edu. 2. School of Medicine, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, U.S.A. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, U.S.A. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To biomechanically compare alternative graft constructs for all-inside anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the event that the semitendinosus harvested is too narrow or too short to make a graft larger than 8 mm. METHODS: Bovine extensor tendons were used to make 6 different 9-mm-diameter grafts: traditional 4-strand, anastomosis 4-strand, 6-strand, 3-strand, button-fixation 4-strand, and loop-and-tack 4-strand grafts. The grafts were then subjected to cyclic biomechanical testing followed by failure loading. Force at 3 and 5 mm of displacement and ultimate force were recorded for all grafts. RESULTS: Compared with the traditional 4-strand graft, the only graft that showed significant biomechanical differences during the cyclic phase of testing was the button-fixation 4-strand graft, which was characterized by lower force at 3 mm of displacement (74 ± 34 N vs 122 ± 13 N, P = .004) and 5 mm of displacement (122 ± 35 N vs 172 ± 3 N, P = .006). During failure loading, ultimate force was significantly lower for both the 6-strand graft (491 ± 186 N, P = .041) and button-fixation 4-strand graft (326 ± 27 N, P < .001) than for the traditional 4-strand graft (778 ± 176 N). All other grafts were equivalent for the parameters tested. CONCLUSIONS: The anastomosis 4-strand, 3-strand, and loop-and-tack 4-strand grafts do not biomechanically differ in cyclic loading and ultimate force from traditional 4-strand grafts. This study supports the use of anastomosis 4-strand, 3-strand, or loop-and-tack 4-strand grafts in the event that a traditional all-inside 4-strand graft cannot be prepared from a harvested semitendinosus tendon in ACL reconstruction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study tests and describes alternatives to the traditional 4-strand semitendinosus autograft for all-inside ACL reconstruction in the event that the harvested tendon is not adequate.
PURPOSE: To biomechanically compare alternative graft constructs for all-inside anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the event that the semitendinosus harvested is too narrow or too short to make a graft larger than 8 mm. METHODS:Bovine extensor tendons were used to make 6 different 9-mm-diameter grafts: traditional 4-strand, anastomosis 4-strand, 6-strand, 3-strand, button-fixation 4-strand, and loop-and-tack 4-strand grafts. The grafts were then subjected to cyclic biomechanical testing followed by failure loading. Force at 3 and 5 mm of displacement and ultimate force were recorded for all grafts. RESULTS: Compared with the traditional 4-strand graft, the only graft that showed significant biomechanical differences during the cyclic phase of testing was the button-fixation 4-strand graft, which was characterized by lower force at 3 mm of displacement (74 ± 34 N vs 122 ± 13 N, P = .004) and 5 mm of displacement (122 ± 35 N vs 172 ± 3 N, P = .006). During failure loading, ultimate force was significantly lower for both the 6-strand graft (491 ± 186 N, P = .041) and button-fixation 4-strand graft (326 ± 27 N, P < .001) than for the traditional 4-strand graft (778 ± 176 N). All other grafts were equivalent for the parameters tested. CONCLUSIONS: The anastomosis 4-strand, 3-strand, and loop-and-tack 4-strand grafts do not biomechanically differ in cyclic loading and ultimate force from traditional 4-strand grafts. This study supports the use of anastomosis 4-strand, 3-strand, or loop-and-tack 4-strand grafts in the event that a traditional all-inside 4-strand graft cannot be prepared from a harvested semitendinosus tendon in ACL reconstruction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study tests and describes alternatives to the traditional 4-strand semitendinosus autograft for all-inside ACL reconstruction in the event that the harvested tendon is not adequate.
Authors: Michael R Boniello; Paul M Schwingler; Justin M Bonner; Samuel P Robinson; Andrew Cotter; Kevin F Bonner Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Rafael Calvo; David Figueroa; Francisco Figueroa; Alex Vaisman; Andrés Schmidt-Hebbel; Nelson Morales; Guillermo Izquierdo Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Przemyslaw M Kamien; Josie M Hydrick; William H Replogle; Linda T Go; Gene R Barrett Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Michael W Mariscalco; David C Flanigan; Joshua Mitchell; Angela D Pedroza; Morgan H Jones; Jack T Andrish; Richard D Parker; Christopher C Kaeding; Robert A Magnussen Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Katharine Hollnagel; Brent M Johnson; Kelley K Whitmer; Andrew Hanna; Thomas K Miller Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.176