Rui Sun1, Leiting Zhuang1, Mingyi Duan1, Xunqi Liu1, Hangzhou Zhang1. 1. Department of Orthopedics-Sports Medicine/Joint Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang Liaoning, 110000, P.R.China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the strength difference between the interfacial screw and the interfacial screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology to fix the tibial end of ligament during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction through the biomechanical test. METHODS: Twenty fresh frozen pig tibia were randomly divided into two groups ( n=10) to prepare ACL reconstruction models. The graft tendons in the experimental group were fixed with interfacial screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology, and the graft tendons in the control group were fixed with interfacial screw. The two groups of specimens were fixed in the high-frequency dynamic mechanics test system M-3000, and the length change (displacement), ultimate load, and stiffness of graft tendons were measured through the reciprocating test and load-failure test. RESULTS: The results of reciprocating test showed that the displacement of the experimental group was (3.06±0.58) mm, and that of the control group was (2.82±0.46) mm, and there was no significant difference between the two groups ( t=0.641, P=0.529). The load-failure test results showed that the stiffness of the experimental group and the control group were (95.39±13.63) and (91.38±14.28) N/mm, respectively, with no significant difference ( t=1.021, P=0.321). The ultimate load of the experimental group was (743.15±173.96) N, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (574.70±74.43) N ( t=2.648, P=0.016). CONCLUSION: In ACL reconstruction, the fixation strength of tibial end with interface screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology is obviously better than that of interface screw alone.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the strength difference between the interfacial screw and the interfacial screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology to fix the tibial end of ligament during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction through the biomechanical test. METHODS: Twenty fresh frozen pig tibia were randomly divided into two groups ( n=10) to prepare ACL reconstruction models. The graft tendons in the experimental group were fixed with interfacial screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology, and the graft tendons in the control group were fixed with interfacial screw. The two groups of specimens were fixed in the high-frequency dynamic mechanics test system M-3000, and the length change (displacement), ultimate load, and stiffness of graft tendons were measured through the reciprocating test and load-failure test. RESULTS: The results of reciprocating test showed that the displacement of the experimental group was (3.06±0.58) mm, and that of the control group was (2.82±0.46) mm, and there was no significant difference between the two groups ( t=0.641, P=0.529). The load-failure test results showed that the stiffness of the experimental group and the control group were (95.39±13.63) and (91.38±14.28) N/mm, respectively, with no significant difference ( t=1.021, P=0.321). The ultimate load of the experimental group was (743.15±173.96) N, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (574.70±74.43) N ( t=2.648, P=0.016). CONCLUSION: In ACL reconstruction, the fixation strength of tibial end with interface screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology is obviously better than that of interface screw alone.
Authors: Petteri Kousa; Teppo L N Järvinen; Mika Vihavainen; Pekka Kannus; Markku Järvinen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: John J Lee; Karimdad Otarodifard; Bong Jae Jun; Michelle H McGarry; George F Hatch; Thay Q Lee Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Riccardo Cristiani; Per-Mats Janarv; Björn Engström; Gunnar Edman; Magnus Forssblad; Anders Stålman Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 4.772