Significant Loss of ACL Graft Force With Tibial-Sided Soft Tissue Interference Screw Fixation Over 24 Hours: A Biomechanical Study

Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Adjustable-Loop Suspensory Devices for All-Inside ACL Reconstruction: A Time-Zero Full-Construct Model

Background

Little is known about the stability of adjustable-loop devices (ALDs) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR).

Purpose

To evaluate the stabilization behavior of 3 different types of ALDs for all-inside ACLR in a full-construct surgical technique-based manner.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

The femoral and tibial devices of Ultrabutton (Smith & Nephew), Infinity (Conmed), and TightRope II (Arthrex) were applied to quadrupled bovine tendon grafts (n = 8 each) with tibial-sided traction applied (350 N) for graft tensioning in a simulated fully extended knee. Knotless femoral graft fixation was based on either a suture-locking device (SLD; Ultrabutton), button-locking device (BLD; Infinity), or dual-locking device (DLD; TightRope II). All constructs were progressively loaded (50 N/500 cycles) from 50 to 300 N for 3000 cycles (0.75 Hz), including complete unloading situations and pull to failure (50 mm/min). Construct elongation, stiffness, and ultimate load were analyzed.

Results

BLD showed significantly greater initial elongation (-2.69 ± 0.15 mm) than DLD (-3.19 ± 0.21 mm; P < .001) but behaved similarly to SLD (-2.93 ± 0.23 mm). While DLD and SLD had the smallest initial elongation at the same significance level, they behaved opposite to each other with gradually increasing peak loading. At the end of testing, DLD had the lowest (-0.64 ± 0.32 mm) and SLD the highest (3.41 ± 1.01 mm) total elongation (P < .003 for both). SLD displayed significantly higher dynamic elongation (6.34 ± 0.23 mm) than BLD (3.21 ± 0.61 mm) and DLD (2.56 ± 0.31 mm) (P < .001 for both). The failure load of BLD (865.0 ± 183.8 N) was significantly lower (P < .026) compared with SLD and DLD (>1000 N). The predominant failure mode was suture rupture and tibial bone breakage with button subsidence (SLD, n = 4). No significant difference in stiffness between constructs was found.

Conclusion

While DLD successfully restricted critical construct elongation, BLD partially and SLD completely exceeded the clinical failure threshold (>3 mm) of plastic elongation with loop lengthening during increasing cyclic peak loading with complete unloading. Higher failure loads of SLD and DLD implants (>1000 N) were achieved at similar construct stiffness to BLD.

Clinical Relevance

A detailed biomechanical understanding of the stabilization potential is pertinent to the continued evolution of ALDs to improve clinical outcomes.

Biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fixation methods and implications on clinical outcomes

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the more common surgeries encountered by orthopaedic surgeons, which has its inherent challenges due to the complex anatomy and biomechanical properties required to reproduce the function and stability of the native ACL. Multiple biomechanical factors from graft choice and tunnel placement to graft tensioning and fixation methods are vital in achieving a successful clinical outcome. Common methods of ACLR graft fixation in both the primary and revision setting are classified into compression/interference, suspensory, or hybrid fixation strategies with multiple adjunct methods of fixation. The individual biomechanical properties of these implants are crucial in facilitating early post-operative rehabilitation, while also withstanding the shear and tensile forces to avoid displacement and early graft failure during graft osseointegration. Implants within these categories include the use of interference screws (IFSs), as well as suspensory fixation with a button, posts, surgical staples, or suture anchors. Outcomes of comparative studies across the various fixation types demonstrate that compression fixation can decrease graft-tunnel motion, tunnel widening, and graft creep, at the risk of damage to the graft by IFSs and graft slippage. Suspensory fixation allows for a minimally invasive approach while allowing similar cortical apposition and biomechanical strength when compared to compression fixation. However, suspensory fixation is criticized for the risk of tunnel widening and increased graft-tunnel motion. Several adjunct fixation methods, including the use of posts, suture-anchors, and staples, offer biomechanical advantages over compression or suspensory fixation methods alone, through a second form of fixation in a second plane of motion. Regardless of the method or implant chosen for fixation, technically secure fixation is paramount to avoid displacement of the graft and allow for appropriate integration of the graft into the bone tunnel. While no single fixation technique has been established as the gold standard, a thorough understanding of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages of each fixation method can be used to determine the optimal ACLR fixation method through an individualized patient approach.

A Higher Initial Tensioning Force of an ACL Graft Results in a Higher Graft Force After Screw Fixation Irrespective of the Screw Diameter: A Biomechanical Study

BACKGROUND

The intra-articular graft force (IAGF) in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction decreases quickly over the first hours after surgery. Nevertheless, little is known about whether the initial extra-articular tensioning force (EATF) and screw diameter affect the graft force after fixation.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of different EATFs on the IAGF of a soft tissue graft fixated via a bioabsorbable interference screw over 100 minutes after fixation and to evaluate the effects of different screw diameters within 1 mm of the tunnel width during this process.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

In this biomechanical study, a porcine quadruple-strand soft tissue graft was inserted into the tibial anterior cruciate ligament tunnel. On the extra-articular side, 3 loads were applied during retrograde insertion of the bioabsorbable interference screw (6, 7, and 8 mm): 20 N, 80 N, and maximum manual EATF (N_max). Nine study groups consisting of 10 tibiae each were created to test the effects of different EATFs and screw sizes. The IAGF was measured up to 100 minutes after the EATF was released.

RESULTS

An EATF ≥80 N resulted in a larger IAGF for all screw sizes at 100 minutes. There were no significant associations between the IAGF at 100 minutes and different screw diameters. Inserting the tibial screw significantly increased the IAGF in all groups, with the exception of N_max applied in groups with 7- or 8-mm screws. When compared with the end of screw insertion, after the release of the EATF, the IAGF dropped by 55% to 77 % at 100 minutes.

CONCLUSION

An initial EATF ≥80 N is associated with a significantly larger IAGF at 100 minutes in this cadaveric simulation. The IAGF in soft tissue grafts decreased substantially after the retrograde placement of an interference screw. A recommendation regarding screw diameter with respect to the IAGF cannot be given.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To obtain a higher residual graft force after bioabsorbable interference screw fixation, an initial EATF ≥80 N should be applied according to this model. The significant decrease in graft force after the release of the EATF indicates that the reconstructed knee cannot be mechanically stabilized after the surgery.