Comparison of the mechanical properties and mechanical damages to tendon tissue in three suspensory fixation techniques.
Anterior cruciate ligament
Optical coherence tomography
Suspensory fixation device
Tendon damage
Journal
Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology
ISSN: 2214-6873
Titre abrégé: Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol
Pays: Singapore
ID NLM: 101648546
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
07
10
2021
revised:
26
03
2022
accepted:
23
05
2022
entrez:
11
8
2022
pubmed:
12
8
2022
medline:
12
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is the most common traumatic injury to the knee joint. Suspensory fixation has become popular in ACL reconstruction because of its high primary stability, less invasiveness, and surgical convenience. There are two common types of suspensory fixation devices: those with fixed-length and those with adjustable-length loops. Owing to structural differences and differences in initial tensioning techniques, it is expected that mechanical property and damage to the tendons will vary from device to device; however, no literature has examined this so far. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the damage caused to the tendon by three different suspensory fixation devices. An effective mechanical test was carried out as a prerequisite. First, the mechanical properties of simple loop device (SLD) as fixed-length loop device, first-generation, and second-generation adjustable devices (AD1 and AD2) as adjustable-length loop devices were tested (isolated device testing). Second, each device was tested using bovine extensor tendons (specimen testing). Cyclic testing included 2000 cycles; the devices were subsequently displaced until failure, and the ultimate tensile strength was determined using isolated device testing. Six samples of 3 devices were used in each testing experiment. After specimen testing, the surface structure of the tendon was evaluated quantitatively using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and our original histological scoring system. During isolated device testing, SLD demonstrated the least cyclic displacement, followed by AD1 and AD2. The highest ultimate tensile strength was observed in AD2, followed by SLD and AD1. In specimen testing, the least cyclic displacement was observed in SLD, followed by AD1 and AD2. Histologically, AD1 demonstrated a significantly lower score, with damaged surface morphology, than SLD and AD2. OCT values were significantly higher, with a more disturbing tendon surface structure, in AD1 than in SLD and AD2. The first-generation adjustable loop device exhibited greatest graft tissue damage at the suspensory site in a clinically relevant setting. The thinner adjustable loop mechanism may have elevated graft damage by frictional stresses during loop adjustment or by repetitive tensioning stresses.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is the most common traumatic injury to the knee joint. Suspensory fixation has become popular in ACL reconstruction because of its high primary stability, less invasiveness, and surgical convenience. There are two common types of suspensory fixation devices: those with fixed-length and those with adjustable-length loops. Owing to structural differences and differences in initial tensioning techniques, it is expected that mechanical property and damage to the tendons will vary from device to device; however, no literature has examined this so far. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the damage caused to the tendon by three different suspensory fixation devices. An effective mechanical test was carried out as a prerequisite.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
First, the mechanical properties of simple loop device (SLD) as fixed-length loop device, first-generation, and second-generation adjustable devices (AD1 and AD2) as adjustable-length loop devices were tested (isolated device testing). Second, each device was tested using bovine extensor tendons (specimen testing). Cyclic testing included 2000 cycles; the devices were subsequently displaced until failure, and the ultimate tensile strength was determined using isolated device testing. Six samples of 3 devices were used in each testing experiment. After specimen testing, the surface structure of the tendon was evaluated quantitatively using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and our original histological scoring system.
Results
UNASSIGNED
During isolated device testing, SLD demonstrated the least cyclic displacement, followed by AD1 and AD2. The highest ultimate tensile strength was observed in AD2, followed by SLD and AD1. In specimen testing, the least cyclic displacement was observed in SLD, followed by AD1 and AD2. Histologically, AD1 demonstrated a significantly lower score, with damaged surface morphology, than SLD and AD2. OCT values were significantly higher, with a more disturbing tendon surface structure, in AD1 than in SLD and AD2.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The first-generation adjustable loop device exhibited greatest graft tissue damage at the suspensory site in a clinically relevant setting. The thinner adjustable loop mechanism may have elevated graft damage by frictional stresses during loop adjustment or by repetitive tensioning stresses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35949263
doi: 10.1016/j.asmart.2022.05.003
pii: S2214-6873(22)00013-9
pmc: PMC9343929
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1-8Informations de copyright
© 2022 Asia Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society. Published by Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
Références
Indian J Orthop. 2020 Jan 13;54(4):426-443
pubmed: 32549958
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jul;44(7):1671-9
pubmed: 27161867
J Knee Surg. 2017 Jan;30(1):63-69
pubmed: 27018510
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Mar;75(3):377-86
pubmed: 8444916
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Sep;134(9):1293-9
pubmed: 24935662
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):416-22
pubmed: 23263298
Int Orthop. 2003;27(3):184-9
pubmed: 12799764
Arthroscopy. 2009 Jul;25(7):767-76
pubmed: 19560641
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6 Suppl 1:S70-6
pubmed: 9608467
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Jan;37(1):160-7
pubmed: 18832342
Med Eng Phys. 2012 May;34(4):516-20
pubmed: 22189210
Am J Sports Med. 1993 Mar-Apr;21(2):176-85
pubmed: 8465909
J Rheumatol. 1999 Mar;26(3):627-35
pubmed: 10090174
Am J Knee Surg. 2000 Summer;13(3):143-51
pubmed: 11277242
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;50(12):744-50
pubmed: 27034129
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 Jul;137(7):989-995
pubmed: 28466182
Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):566-572
pubmed: 29146163
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1380-5
pubmed: 25767269
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Dec;75(12):1795-803
pubmed: 8258550
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Apr-May;32(3):635-40
pubmed: 15090378
Knee. 2014 Jun;21(3):743-8
pubmed: 24613584
Photochem Photobiol. 2007 May-Jun;83(3):675-85
pubmed: 17576378
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Apr 24;6(4):2325967118768743
pubmed: 29780843
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Oct 19;6(10):2325967118801762
pubmed: 30364394
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;42(2):343-9
pubmed: 24158183
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Feb;19(2):196-201
pubmed: 20644911
J Exp Orthop. 2021 Feb 3;8(1):9
pubmed: 33537914
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 May;26(5):1392-1398
pubmed: 29124286