A Biomechanical Analysis of Tibial Fixation Methods in Hamstring-Graft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
biomechanics
interference screw
ligament reconstruction
suspensory fixation
tape locking screw
Journal
The Iowa orthopaedic journal
ISSN: 1555-1377
Titre abrégé: Iowa Orthop J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8908272
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
entrez:
16
8
2019
pubmed:
16
8
2019
medline:
7
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are conflicting results on the biomechanical properties of tibial fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The objective of this study is to compare the initial biomechanical properties of tibial fixation in hamstring-graft ACL reconstruction with interference screw, suspension button, and Tape Locking Screw Twenty-one fresh-frozen porcine tibiae were equally divided into three groups of seven tibiae to evaluate the fixation of human hamstring tendon grafts with interference screw, suspension button, or Tape Locking Screw fixation. Using a servohydraulic materials testing system, each graft was subjected to 500 cycles of loading followed by a monotonic failure test. Interference screw fixation demonstrated significantly lower cyclic displacement (1.28 ± 0.73 mm) than the other groups fixated with either a suspension button device (2.54 ± 0.27 mm, p = 0.003) or a Tape Locking Screw (2.32 ± 0.42 mm, p = .009), and a significantly greater cyclic stiffness (212.19 ± 40.30 N/mm) than the Tape Locking Screw (137.64 ± 26.17 N/mm, p = 0.002). The interference screw also demonstrated significantly higher pullout stiffness (166.83 ± 23.22 N/mm) than the suspension button (112.78 ± 24.14 N/mm, P = 0.002) and Tape Locking Screw (109.11 ± 12.91 N/mm, P = 0.0002). Tibial fixation with an interference screw demonstrated superior biomechanical properties for cyclic testing compared to the suspension button and Tape Locking Screw. Load to failure did not differ between groups, and there were no significant biomechanical differences between the suspension button and Tape Locking Screw fixation devices. Despite the initial biomechanical differences, all three fixation devices exhibited mean loads to failure and cyclic displacements below clinically relevant thresholds of failure. These data suggest all three fixation methods are viable options for achieving a functional ACL reconstruction.
Sections du résumé
Background
There are conflicting results on the biomechanical properties of tibial fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The objective of this study is to compare the initial biomechanical properties of tibial fixation in hamstring-graft ACL reconstruction with interference screw, suspension button, and Tape Locking Screw
Methods
Twenty-one fresh-frozen porcine tibiae were equally divided into three groups of seven tibiae to evaluate the fixation of human hamstring tendon grafts with interference screw, suspension button, or Tape Locking Screw fixation. Using a servohydraulic materials testing system, each graft was subjected to 500 cycles of loading followed by a monotonic failure test.
Results
Interference screw fixation demonstrated significantly lower cyclic displacement (1.28 ± 0.73 mm) than the other groups fixated with either a suspension button device (2.54 ± 0.27 mm, p = 0.003) or a Tape Locking Screw (2.32 ± 0.42 mm, p = .009), and a significantly greater cyclic stiffness (212.19 ± 40.30 N/mm) than the Tape Locking Screw (137.64 ± 26.17 N/mm, p = 0.002). The interference screw also demonstrated significantly higher pullout stiffness (166.83 ± 23.22 N/mm) than the suspension button (112.78 ± 24.14 N/mm, P = 0.002) and Tape Locking Screw (109.11 ± 12.91 N/mm, P = 0.0002).
Conclusions
Tibial fixation with an interference screw demonstrated superior biomechanical properties for cyclic testing compared to the suspension button and Tape Locking Screw. Load to failure did not differ between groups, and there were no significant biomechanical differences between the suspension button and Tape Locking Screw fixation devices.
Clinical Relevance
Despite the initial biomechanical differences, all three fixation devices exhibited mean loads to failure and cyclic displacements below clinically relevant thresholds of failure. These data suggest all three fixation methods are viable options for achieving a functional ACL reconstruction.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
141-147Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures: The authors report no potential conflicts of interest related to this study.
Références
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Apr;35(4):564-74
pubmed: 17261567
Arthroscopy. 2011 May;27(5):717-27
pubmed: 21663726
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Mar-Apr;31(2):182-8
pubmed: 12642250
Clin Sports Med. 1999 Jan;18(1):109-71
pubmed: 10028120
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Sep-Oct;27(5):621-5
pubmed: 10496580
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Jan;37(1):160-7
pubmed: 18832342
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Dec;32(8):1986-95
pubmed: 15572332
Cureus. 2015 Nov 13;7(11):e378
pubmed: 26697280
J Knee Surg. 2015 Dec;28(6):506-12
pubmed: 25347056
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Mar-Apr;27(2):202-7
pubmed: 10102102
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Aug;37(8):1531-8
pubmed: 19460814
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Apr;81(4):549-57
pubmed: 10225801
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011 Sep;97(5):555-9
pubmed: 21652276
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Jan-Feb;27(1):35-43
pubmed: 9934416
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Jun;103(4):591-595
pubmed: 28238964
Am J Sports Med. 2001 Jan-Feb;29(1):67-71
pubmed: 11206259
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Aug;27(8):2577-2584
pubmed: 30406408
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):2-11
pubmed: 12531750
J Knee Surg. 2009 Apr;22(2):120-9
pubmed: 19476176
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004 Sep;12(5):391-7
pubmed: 15024559
Arthroscopy. 2009 Dec;25(12):1408-14
pubmed: 19962067
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1380-5
pubmed: 25767269
Arthroscopy. 2012 Oct;28(10):1555-66
pubmed: 22560484
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Sep-Oct;28(5):705-10
pubmed: 11032229
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Apr;104(2):203-207
pubmed: 29408566
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Nov;123(9):460-5
pubmed: 12920536
Arthroscopy. 2003 Dec;19 Suppl 1:14-29
pubmed: 14673415
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015 Feb;25(2):339-47
pubmed: 24816761