Cargando…

Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability, especially graft slippage of an allograft screw and a conventional interference screw for tibial implant fixation in ACL reconstruction. Twenty-four paired human proximal tibia specimens underwent ACL reconstruction, with the graf...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benca, Emir, van Knegsel, Kenneth P., Zderic, Ivan, Caspar, Jan, Strassl, Andreas, Hirtler, Lena, Fuchssteiner, Christoph, Gueorguiev, Boyko, Windhager, Reinhard, Widhalm, Harald, Varga, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9670106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36406221
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.1000624
_version_ 1784832268192186368
author Benca, Emir
van Knegsel, Kenneth P.
Zderic, Ivan
Caspar, Jan
Strassl, Andreas
Hirtler, Lena
Fuchssteiner, Christoph
Gueorguiev, Boyko
Windhager, Reinhard
Widhalm, Harald
Varga, Peter
author_facet Benca, Emir
van Knegsel, Kenneth P.
Zderic, Ivan
Caspar, Jan
Strassl, Andreas
Hirtler, Lena
Fuchssteiner, Christoph
Gueorguiev, Boyko
Windhager, Reinhard
Widhalm, Harald
Varga, Peter
author_sort Benca, Emir
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability, especially graft slippage of an allograft screw and a conventional interference screw for tibial implant fixation in ACL reconstruction. Twenty-four paired human proximal tibia specimens underwent ACL reconstruction, with the graft in one specimen of each pair fixed using the allograft screw and the other using the conventional interference screw. Specimens were subjected to cyclic tensile loading until failure. The two fixation methods did not show any statistical difference in load at graft slippage (p = 0.241) or estimated mean survival until slippage onset (p = 0.061). The ultimate load and the estimated mean survival until failure were higher for the interference screw (p = 0.04, and p = 0.018, respectively). Graft displacement at ultimate load reached values of up to 7.2 (interference screw) and 11.3 mm (allograft screw). The allograft screw for implant fixation in ACL reconstruction demonstrated comparable behavior in terms of graft slippage to the interference screw but underperformed in terms of ultimate load. However, the ultimate load, occurring at progressive graft slippage, may not be considered a direct indicator of clinical failure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9670106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96701062022-11-18 Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction Benca, Emir van Knegsel, Kenneth P. Zderic, Ivan Caspar, Jan Strassl, Andreas Hirtler, Lena Fuchssteiner, Christoph Gueorguiev, Boyko Windhager, Reinhard Widhalm, Harald Varga, Peter Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability, especially graft slippage of an allograft screw and a conventional interference screw for tibial implant fixation in ACL reconstruction. Twenty-four paired human proximal tibia specimens underwent ACL reconstruction, with the graft in one specimen of each pair fixed using the allograft screw and the other using the conventional interference screw. Specimens were subjected to cyclic tensile loading until failure. The two fixation methods did not show any statistical difference in load at graft slippage (p = 0.241) or estimated mean survival until slippage onset (p = 0.061). The ultimate load and the estimated mean survival until failure were higher for the interference screw (p = 0.04, and p = 0.018, respectively). Graft displacement at ultimate load reached values of up to 7.2 (interference screw) and 11.3 mm (allograft screw). The allograft screw for implant fixation in ACL reconstruction demonstrated comparable behavior in terms of graft slippage to the interference screw but underperformed in terms of ultimate load. However, the ultimate load, occurring at progressive graft slippage, may not be considered a direct indicator of clinical failure. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9670106/ /pubmed/36406221 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.1000624 Text en Copyright © 2022 Benca, van Knegsel, Zderic, Caspar, Strassl, Hirtler, Fuchssteiner, Gueorguiev, Windhager, Widhalm and Varga. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Benca, Emir
van Knegsel, Kenneth P.
Zderic, Ivan
Caspar, Jan
Strassl, Andreas
Hirtler, Lena
Fuchssteiner, Christoph
Gueorguiev, Boyko
Windhager, Reinhard
Widhalm, Harald
Varga, Peter
Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction
title Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction
title_full Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction
title_fullStr Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction
title_short Biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for ACL reconstruction
title_sort biomechanical evaluation of an allograft fixation system for acl reconstruction
topic Bioengineering and Biotechnology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9670106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36406221
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.1000624
work_keys_str_mv AT bencaemir biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT vanknegselkennethp biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT zdericivan biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT casparjan biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT strasslandreas biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT hirtlerlena biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT fuchssteinerchristoph biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT gueorguievboyko biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT windhagerreinhard biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT widhalmharald biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction
AT vargapeter biomechanicalevaluationofanallograftfixationsystemforaclreconstruction