Cargando…

Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques

PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical profile of subcortical backup fixation (subcortical button [SB]) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as compared with a bicortical post and washer (BP) and suture anchor (SA) when used with interference screw (IS) primary fixation and to evaluate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Colantonio, Donald F., Kicklighter, Rachel K., Le, Anthony H., Nowicki, Margaret A., Posner, Matthew A., Zhou, Liang F., Gee, Shawn M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9971884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36866315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.10.012
_version_ 1784898197179596800
author Colantonio, Donald F.
Kicklighter, Rachel K.
Le, Anthony H.
Nowicki, Margaret A.
Posner, Matthew A.
Zhou, Liang F.
Gee, Shawn M.
author_facet Colantonio, Donald F.
Kicklighter, Rachel K.
Le, Anthony H.
Nowicki, Margaret A.
Posner, Matthew A.
Zhou, Liang F.
Gee, Shawn M.
author_sort Colantonio, Donald F.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical profile of subcortical backup fixation (subcortical button [SB]) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as compared with a bicortical post and washer (BP) and suture anchor (SA) when used with interference screw (IS) primary fixation and to evaluate the utility of backup fixation for tibial fixation with extramedullary cortical button primary fixation. METHODS: Fifty composite tibias with polyester webbing–simulated graft were used to test constructs across 10 methods. Specimens were separated into the following groups (n = 5): 9-mm IS only, BP (with and without graft and IS), SB (with and without graft and IS), SA (with and without graft and IS), extramedullary suture button (with and without graft and IS), and extramedullary suture button with BP as backup fixation. Specimens were tested under cyclic loading and then loaded to failure. Maximal load at failure, displacement, and stiffness were compared. RESULTS: Without a graft, the SB and BP had similar maximal loads (802.46 ± 185.18 N vs 785.67 ± 100.96 N, P = .560), and both were stronger than the SA (368.13 ± 77.26 N, P < .001). With graft and an IS, there was no significant difference in maximal load between the BP (1,461.27 ± 173.75 N), SB (1,362.46 ± 80.47 N), and SA (1,334.52 ± 195.80 N). All backup fixation groups were stronger than the control group with IS fixation only (932.91 ± 99.86 N, P < .001). There was no significant difference in outcome measures between the extramedullary suture button groups with and without the BP (failure loads of 721.39 ± 103.32 N and 718.15 ± 108.61 N, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Subcortical backup fixation in ACL reconstruction has similar biomechanical properties to current methods and is a viable backup fixation alternative. Backup fixation methods work synergistically with IS primary fixation to strengthen the construct. There is no advantage to adding backup fixation to extramedullary button (all-inside) primary fixation when all suture strands are secured to the extramedullary button. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides evidence that subcortical backup fixation is a viable alternative for surgeons during ACL reconstruction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9971884
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99718842023-03-01 Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques Colantonio, Donald F. Kicklighter, Rachel K. Le, Anthony H. Nowicki, Margaret A. Posner, Matthew A. Zhou, Liang F. Gee, Shawn M. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Original Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical profile of subcortical backup fixation (subcortical button [SB]) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as compared with a bicortical post and washer (BP) and suture anchor (SA) when used with interference screw (IS) primary fixation and to evaluate the utility of backup fixation for tibial fixation with extramedullary cortical button primary fixation. METHODS: Fifty composite tibias with polyester webbing–simulated graft were used to test constructs across 10 methods. Specimens were separated into the following groups (n = 5): 9-mm IS only, BP (with and without graft and IS), SB (with and without graft and IS), SA (with and without graft and IS), extramedullary suture button (with and without graft and IS), and extramedullary suture button with BP as backup fixation. Specimens were tested under cyclic loading and then loaded to failure. Maximal load at failure, displacement, and stiffness were compared. RESULTS: Without a graft, the SB and BP had similar maximal loads (802.46 ± 185.18 N vs 785.67 ± 100.96 N, P = .560), and both were stronger than the SA (368.13 ± 77.26 N, P < .001). With graft and an IS, there was no significant difference in maximal load between the BP (1,461.27 ± 173.75 N), SB (1,362.46 ± 80.47 N), and SA (1,334.52 ± 195.80 N). All backup fixation groups were stronger than the control group with IS fixation only (932.91 ± 99.86 N, P < .001). There was no significant difference in outcome measures between the extramedullary suture button groups with and without the BP (failure loads of 721.39 ± 103.32 N and 718.15 ± 108.61 N, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Subcortical backup fixation in ACL reconstruction has similar biomechanical properties to current methods and is a viable backup fixation alternative. Backup fixation methods work synergistically with IS primary fixation to strengthen the construct. There is no advantage to adding backup fixation to extramedullary button (all-inside) primary fixation when all suture strands are secured to the extramedullary button. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides evidence that subcortical backup fixation is a viable alternative for surgeons during ACL reconstruction. Elsevier 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9971884/ /pubmed/36866315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.10.012 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Colantonio, Donald F.
Kicklighter, Rachel K.
Le, Anthony H.
Nowicki, Margaret A.
Posner, Matthew A.
Zhou, Liang F.
Gee, Shawn M.
Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques
title Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques
title_full Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques
title_fullStr Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques
title_full_unstemmed Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques
title_short Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques
title_sort subcortical backup tibial fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has similar maximal strength to current techniques
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9971884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36866315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.10.012
work_keys_str_mv AT colantoniodonaldf subcorticalbackuptibialfixationinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionhassimilarmaximalstrengthtocurrenttechniques
AT kicklighterrachelk subcorticalbackuptibialfixationinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionhassimilarmaximalstrengthtocurrenttechniques
AT leanthonyh subcorticalbackuptibialfixationinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionhassimilarmaximalstrengthtocurrenttechniques
AT nowickimargareta subcorticalbackuptibialfixationinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionhassimilarmaximalstrengthtocurrenttechniques
AT posnermatthewa subcorticalbackuptibialfixationinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionhassimilarmaximalstrengthtocurrenttechniques
AT zhouliangf subcorticalbackuptibialfixationinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionhassimilarmaximalstrengthtocurrenttechniques
AT geeshawnm subcorticalbackuptibialfixationinanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionhassimilarmaximalstrengthtocurrenttechniques