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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ammann, Elias, Hecker, Andreas, Bachmann, Elias, Snedeker, Jess G., Fucentese, Sandro F.
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