Mechanical properties of cortical fixators for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872017139-45

Keywords:

anterior crucial ligament, cortical fiction device, mechanical strength

Abstract

Reconstruction of the damaged anterior crucial ligament today is a routine surgery. Violation of graft fixation and its exten­sion are the most frequent causes of instability. Recently ac­quired cortical use button latches become popular.

Objective: to evaluate the possibility of using own cortical locking fixation with adaptive loop based on the study of its mechanical characteristics.

Methods: using the bursting of hydraulic machines tested two types of clamps with cortical adaptive loop: 1) Tight­Rope anterior crucial ligament (Arthrex Inc., Naples, FL) eg reverse thrust; 2) own, consisting of button plate and thread Fiberwire № 2 (Arthrex Inc., Naples, FL). To determineload ex­tension have made constant load of 50 H for 30 s. Next applied given sinusoidal cyclic preloading from 50 to 250 H with a fre­quency of 2 Hz. Repeat exertion after 50, 100, 500, 1 000 and 2 000 cycles of loading has been assessed. Stretched loop exten­sion of 1 mm/s to determine the maximum tensile strength.

Re­sults: the mean values of load extension did not differ (p > 0.05) in cortical locking own making ((2.07 ± 0.3) mm) and commer­cially available ((1.95 ± 0.2) mm). The difference between the to­tal cyclic extension after 2000 loading cycles was also statisti­cally significant — (1.1 ± 0.1) mm and factory (1.21 ± 0.13) mm in copyright holder. there is no difference overall in elongation (perednavantazhenoho and cyclic) — (3.05 ± 0.95) mm of plant holder, (3.28 ± 0.22) mm in own fixation device; maximum ten­sile strength — (876 ± 56) and (953 ± 48) H respectively.

Conclu­sions: yielded similar mechanical characteristics of the studied devices such as sufficient tensile strength and elongation op­portunity, allow us to recommend them for use in reconstruc­tive surgery of anterior crucial ligament.

References

  1. Korzh NA, Filipenko VA, Dedukh NV. Osteoarthritis – approaches for treatment. Visnyk orthopadii, travmatologii s protezuvannya. 2004;(3):37–40. (in Ukrainian)
  2. Chechik O, Amar E, Khashan M, Lador R, Eyal G, Gold A. An international survey on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practices. Int Orthop. 2013;37(2):201–6. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1611-9.
  3. Pereira H, Correlo VM, Silva-Correia J, Oliveira JM, Reis RL, Espregueira-Mendes J. Migration of «bioabsorbable» screws in ACL repair. How much do we know? A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(4):986–94. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2414-2.
  4. Ramsingh V, Prasad N, Lewis M. Pre-tibial reaction to bio-interference screw in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2014;21(1):91–4. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.07.011.
  5. Laupattarakasem P, Laopaiboon M, Kosuwon W, Laupattarakasem W. Meta-analysis comparing bio-absorbable versus metal interference screw for adverse and clinical outcomes in ante¬rior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(1):142–53. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2340-8.
  6. Drogset JO, Straume LG, Bjørkmo I, Myhr G. A prospective randomized study of ACL-reconstructions using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts fixed with bio-absorbable or metal interference screws. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(5):753–9. doi: 10.1007/s00167- 010-1353-4.
  7. Li S, Chen Y, Lin Z, Cui W, Zhao J, Su W. A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials comparing hamstring autografts versus bone- patellar tendon-bone autografts for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(9):1287–97. doi: 10.1007/s00402-012-1532-5.
  8. Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M, Tanaka MJ, Cole BJ, Bach BR Jr, Paletta GA Jr. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2363–70. doi: 10.1177/0363546514542796.
  9. Barrow AE, Pilia M, Guda T, Kadrmas WR, Burns TC. Femoral suspension devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: do adjustable loops lengthen? Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):343–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546513507769.
  10. Eguchi A, Ochi M, Adachi N, Deie M, Nakamae A, Usman MA Mechanical properties of suspensory fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of the fixed-length loop device versus the adjustable-length loop device. Knee. 2014;21(3):743–8. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.009.
  11. Kleweno CP, Jacir AM, Gardner TR, Ahmad CS, Levine WN. Biomechanical evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament femoral fixation techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(2);339–45. doi: 10.1177/0363546508326706.
  12. Boyle MJ, Vovos TJ, Walker CG, Stabile KJ, Roth JM, Garrett WE Jr Does adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspension loosen after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A retrospective comparative study. Knee. 2015;22(4):304–8. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2015.04.016.
  13. Petre BM, Smith SD, Jansson KS, de Meijer PP, Hackett TR, LaPrade RF, Wijdicks CA. Femoral cortical suspension devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41 (2):416–22. doi: 10.1177/0363546512469875.
  14. Speirs A, Simon D, Lapner P. Evaluation of a new femoral fixation device in a simulated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(3):351–7. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.08.016.
  15. Milano G, Mulas PD, Ziranu F, Piras S, Manunta A, Fabbriciani C. Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(6):660–8. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.04.082
  16. Rodríguez C, García TE, Montes S, Rodríguez L, Maestro A. In vitro comparison between cortical and cortico-cancellous femoral suspension devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: implications for mobilization. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2015;23(8):2324–9. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3055-9.
  17. Gifstad T, Drogset JO, Grontvedt T, Hortemo GS. Femoral fixation of hamstring tendon grafts in ACL reconstructions: the 2-year follow-up results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2014;22(3):2153–62. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2652-3.
  18. Pasqualo M, Plante MJ, Monchik KO, Spenciner DB. A comparison of three adjustable cortical button ACL fixation devices. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015. doi: 10.1007/s00167- 015-3711-8.
  19. Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel differs at the tunnel entrance versus the tunnel exit: an effect of graft-tunnel motion. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1790–800.
  20. Shelburne KB, Pandy MG, Anderson FC, Torry MR. Pattern of anterior cruciate ligament force in normal walking. J Biomech. 2004;37(6):797–805.
  21. Shelburne KB, Pandy MG. A dynamic model of the knee and lower limb for simulating rising movements. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2002;2:149–59. doi: 10.1080/10255840290010265
  22. Serpas F, Yanagawa T, Pandy M. Forward-dynamics simulation of anterior cruciate ligament forces develope during isokinetic dynamometry. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2002;5(1):33–43. doi: 10.1080/1025584021000001614.

Downloads

How to Cite

Krasnoperov, S., Golovakha, M., & Shalomeev, V. (2017). Mechanical properties of cortical fixators for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872017139-45

Issue

No. 1 (2017)

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2017 Sergiy Krasnoperov, Maksim Golovakha, Vadim Shalomeev

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the right of authorship of their manuscript and pass the journal the right of the first publication of this article, which automatically become available from the date of publication under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published manuscript with mandatory linking to authors of the original research and the first publication of this one in this journal.

Authors have the right to enter into a separate supplemental agreement on the additional non-exclusive distribution of manuscript in the form in which it was published by the journal (i.e. to put work in electronic storage of an institution or publish as a part of the book) while maintaining the reference to the first publication of the manuscript in this journal.

The editorial policy of the journal allows authors and encourages manuscript accommodation online (i.e. in storage of an institution or on the personal websites) as before submission of the manuscript to the editorial office, and during its editorial processing because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of the published manuscript citation (see The Effect of Open Access).