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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |