Cargando…
Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL Reconstruction
BACKGROUND: Shortcomings to tibial-side fixation have been reported as causes of failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Adjustable-loop suspensory devices have become popular; however, no comparison with hybrid fixation (ie, interference screw and cortical button) exists to our kno...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9112421/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35592018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671221096107 |
_version_ | 1784709412250714112 |
---|---|
author | Ammann, Elias Hecker, Andreas Bachmann, Elias Snedeker, Jess G. Fucentese, Sandro F. |
author_facet | Ammann, Elias Hecker, Andreas Bachmann, Elias Snedeker, Jess G. Fucentese, Sandro F. |
author_sort | Ammann, Elias |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Shortcomings to tibial-side fixation have been reported as causes of failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Adjustable-loop suspensory devices have become popular; however, no comparison with hybrid fixation (ie, interference screw and cortical button) exists to our knowledge. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of adjustable loop devices (ALDs) in full-tunnel and closed-socket configurations in relation to hybrid fixation. We hypothesized that primary stability of fixation by a tibial ALD will not be inferior to hybrid fixation. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Tibial fixation of a quadrupled tendon graft was biomechanically investigated in a porcine tibia–bovine tendon model using 5 techniques (n = 6 specimens each). The tested constructs included hybrid fixation with a cortical fixation button and interference screw (group 1), single cortical fixation with the full-tunnel technique using an open-suture strand button (group 2) or an ALD (group 3), or closed-socket fixation using 2 different types of ALDs (groups 4 and 5). Each specimen was evaluated using a materials testing machine (1000 cycles from 50-250 N and pull to failure). Force at failure, cyclic displacement, stiffness, and ability to pretension the graft during insertion were compared among the groups. RESULTS: No differences in ultimate load to failure were found between the ALD constructs (groups 3, 4, and 5) and hybrid fixation (group 1). Cyclic displacement was significantly higher in group 2 vs all other groups (P < .001); however, no difference was observed in groups 3, 4, and 5 as compared with group 1. The remaining tension on the construct after fixation was significantly higher in groups 3 and 4 vs groups 1, 2, and 5 (P < .02 for all comparisons), irrespective of whether a full-tunnel or closed-socket approach was used. CONCLUSION: Tibial anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation with knotless ALDs achieved comparable results with hybrid fixation in the full-tunnel and closed-socket techniques. The retention of graft tension appears to be biomechanically more relevant than tunnel type. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study findings emphasize the importance of the tension at which fixation is performed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9112421 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91124212022-05-18 Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL Reconstruction Ammann, Elias Hecker, Andreas Bachmann, Elias Snedeker, Jess G. Fucentese, Sandro F. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Shortcomings to tibial-side fixation have been reported as causes of failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Adjustable-loop suspensory devices have become popular; however, no comparison with hybrid fixation (ie, interference screw and cortical button) exists to our knowledge. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of adjustable loop devices (ALDs) in full-tunnel and closed-socket configurations in relation to hybrid fixation. We hypothesized that primary stability of fixation by a tibial ALD will not be inferior to hybrid fixation. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Tibial fixation of a quadrupled tendon graft was biomechanically investigated in a porcine tibia–bovine tendon model using 5 techniques (n = 6 specimens each). The tested constructs included hybrid fixation with a cortical fixation button and interference screw (group 1), single cortical fixation with the full-tunnel technique using an open-suture strand button (group 2) or an ALD (group 3), or closed-socket fixation using 2 different types of ALDs (groups 4 and 5). Each specimen was evaluated using a materials testing machine (1000 cycles from 50-250 N and pull to failure). Force at failure, cyclic displacement, stiffness, and ability to pretension the graft during insertion were compared among the groups. RESULTS: No differences in ultimate load to failure were found between the ALD constructs (groups 3, 4, and 5) and hybrid fixation (group 1). Cyclic displacement was significantly higher in group 2 vs all other groups (P < .001); however, no difference was observed in groups 3, 4, and 5 as compared with group 1. The remaining tension on the construct after fixation was significantly higher in groups 3 and 4 vs groups 1, 2, and 5 (P < .02 for all comparisons), irrespective of whether a full-tunnel or closed-socket approach was used. CONCLUSION: Tibial anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation with knotless ALDs achieved comparable results with hybrid fixation in the full-tunnel and closed-socket techniques. The retention of graft tension appears to be biomechanically more relevant than tunnel type. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study findings emphasize the importance of the tension at which fixation is performed. SAGE Publications 2022-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9112421/ /pubmed/35592018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671221096107 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Article Ammann, Elias Hecker, Andreas Bachmann, Elias Snedeker, Jess G. Fucentese, Sandro F. Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL Reconstruction |
title | Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL
Reconstruction |
title_full | Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL
Reconstruction |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL
Reconstruction |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL
Reconstruction |
title_short | Evaluation of Tibial Fixation Devices for Quadrupled Hamstring ACL
Reconstruction |
title_sort | evaluation of tibial fixation devices for quadrupled hamstring acl
reconstruction |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9112421/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35592018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671221096107 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ammannelias evaluationoftibialfixationdevicesforquadrupledhamstringaclreconstruction AT heckerandreas evaluationoftibialfixationdevicesforquadrupledhamstringaclreconstruction AT bachmannelias evaluationoftibialfixationdevicesforquadrupledhamstringaclreconstruction AT snedekerjessg evaluationoftibialfixationdevicesforquadrupledhamstringaclreconstruction AT fucentesesandrof evaluationoftibialfixationdevicesforquadrupledhamstringaclreconstruction |