Biomechanical testing of fixed and adjustable femoral cortical suspension devices for ACL reconstruction under high loads and extended cyclic loading

Biomechanical Stability of Third-Generation Adjustable Suture Loop Devices Versus Continuous Loop Button Device for Cortical Fixation of ACL Tendon Grafts

Background

Concerns regarding the primary stability of early adjustable loop button (ALB) devices for cortical fixation of tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have led to the development of new implant designs.

Purpose

To evaluate biomechanical stability of recent ALB implants in comparison with a continuous loop button (CLB) device.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

ACLR was performed in a porcine model (n = 40) using 2-strand porcine flexor tendons with a diameter of 8 mm. Three ALB devices (Infinity Button [ALB1 group]; Tightrope II RT [ALB2 group]; A-TACK [ALB3 group]) and 1 CLB device (FlippTack with polyethylene suture) were used for cortical tendon graft fixation. Cyclic loading (1000 cycles up to 250 N) with complete unloading were applied to the free end of the tendon graft using a uniaxial testing machine, followed by load to failure. Elongation, stiffness, yield load, and ultimate failure load were recorded and compared between the groups using a Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn correction.

Results

Elongation after 1000 cycles at 250 N was similar between groups (ALB1, 4.5 ± 0.7 mm; ALB2, 4.8 ± 0.8 mm; ALB3, 4.5 ± 0.6 mm; CLB, 4.5 ± 0.8 mm), as was load to failure (ALB1, 838 ± 109 N; ALB2, 930 ± 89 N; ALB3, 809 ± 103 N; CLB, 842 ± 80 N). Stiffness was significantly higher in the ALB1 group compared with the CLB group (262.3 ± 21.6 vs 229.3 ± 15.1 N/mm; P < .05). No significant difference was found between the 4 groups regarding yield load. Constructs failed either by rupture of the loop, breakage of the button, or rupture of the tendon.

Conclusion

The tested third-generation ALB devices for cortical fixation in ACLR withstood cyclic loading with complete unloading without significant differences to a CLB device.

Clinical Relevance

The third-generation ALB devices tested in the present study provided biomechanical stability comparable with that of a CLB device. Furthermore, ultimate failure loads of all tested implants exceeded the loads expected to occur in the postoperative period after ACLR.

Both Adjustable and Fixed Loop Hamstring Tendon Graft Fixation Have Similar Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

This study aims to compare the outcomes of fixed-loop device (FLD) vs adjustable-loop device (ALD) graft fixation with up to 2-year follow-up in patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in a predominantly Asian setting.

Methods

Prospectively collected outcome measures as well as clinical records of patients who underwent primary ACLR using either FLD or ALD fixation of hamstring tendon autograft performed by a single surgeon were reviewed. The surgeon in this study used a fixed-loop device from 2018 to 2019 and then changed to adjustable loop from 2019 to 2020. Suspensory fixation was performed on the femoral side, and aperture (interference screw) fixation was performed on the tibial side. Outcome measures included knee range of motion, KT-1000 arthrometer testing, Lysholm knee score, and Tegner activity scale. Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at regular intervals of 6, 12, and 24 months.

Results

A total of 105 patients were identified. Forty-six were excluded due to incomplete follow-up data, so 59 patients with full 2-year follow-up were included in the final study group. Both groups (FLD vs ALD) were similar in demographics except for age (P = .042). Out of 105, there were 59 patients remaining in the study group with 2-year follow-up data. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups at all respective testing intervals.

Conclusions

FLDs and ALDs for suspensory fixation of hamstring tendon autograft in ACLR had similar clinical outcomes with a minimum of 2-year follow up. There is no evidence of graft loosening from loop lengthening.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

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.

Clinical outcomes of three different techniques using adjustable-loop fixation in arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Adjustable femoral suspensory fixation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) become popular in recent years. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of three different techniques using an adjustable-loop fixation in ACRL.

METHODS

This study included 38 patients who underwent ACLR using the adjustable-loop device for femoral fixation between January 2018 and November 2021. All the participants were randomly assigned to a standard (group 1), retensioning (group 2), retensioning and knot tying (group 3). Clinical outcome parametres included Tegner - Lysholm Score, IKDC score, KT-1000 displacement and isokinetic muscle function tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 patients (group 1: n = 13 [mean ± SD age, 30.1 ± 9.40 years]; group 2: n = 12 [mean ± SD age, 24.5 ± 7.79 years]; group 3 = 13 [mean ± SD age, 27.8 ± 6.59 years]) were included in the final analysis. The follow-up period was 9.7 ± 1.2; 9.5 ± 1.7 and 10 ± 1.5 months for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. From preoperatively to postoperatively, the mean Tegner-Lysholm scores improved significantly in all three groups (group 1: from 63.5 to 95.6; group 2: from 61.58 to 98.5; group 3: from 66.6 to 95.9, P < 0.0001 for all), as did the mean IKDC score (group 1: 53.9-88.8; group 2: 61.3-94.9; group 3: 60.7-94.6 (P < 0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSION

The retensioning with or without knot-tying method is believed to increase stability in graft fixation. However, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes in each technique.

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.

Adjustable-loop implants are non-inferior to fixed-loop implants for femoral fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Button implants with an adjustable-loop device (ALD) are often used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Clinical research comparing ALDs with fixed-loop devices (FLD) has mainly been conducted in small patient populations with short follow-up times. To determine whether ALDs are safe to use in ACLR, a non-inferiority study with a large sample population and a long follow-up period would be beneficial. This study compared ALDs with FLDs to determine non-inferior revision surgery rates, knee stability, and patient-reported outcomes (PROM) in ACLRs.

METHODS

This non-inferiority register-based cohort study was conducted using data from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry (DKRR). A total of 12,723 patients > 15 years of age with primary ACLR using hamstring tendon autografts and either an FLD or ALD for femoral fixation were included: 9719 patients were in the FLD group, and 3014 patients were in the ALD group. The primary outcome was revision ACLR with a non-inferiority margin for ALDs at 4% at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcomes were anterior and rotatory knee stability and PROMs based on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at the 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The crude cumulative revision rates in ALD implants at 2 and 5 years were 2.1% (95% CI 1.62-2.68) and 5.0% (95% CI 4.22-5.96), respectively. In the FLD group, the rates were 2.2% (95% CI 1.89-2.48) at 2 years and 4.7% (95% CI 4.31-5.20) at 5 years. The 1-year side-to-side differences were 0.97 mm (95% CI 0.90-1.03) in the ALD group and 1.45 mm (95% CI 1.41-1.49) in the FLD group. In the FLD group, 13% had a positive pivot shift, and in the ALD group, 6% had a positive pivot shift. There were no differences in KOOS.

CONCLUSION

ALDs were non-inferior to FLDs regarding revision rates, knee stability, and patient-reported outcomes. Based on this conclusion, ALDs are safe to use for femoral fixation in ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Anatomical rectangular tunnel anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provides excellent clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the clinical outcomes following anatomical rectangular tunnel anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) graft using an adjustable-length femoral cortical fixation device with enough patients and a high follow-up rate.

METHODS

This study included 125 patients who underwent anatomical rectangular tunnel ACL reconstruction with a BTB graft. A BTB TightRope^® was used for femoral graft fixation. Clinical evaluations were performed more than 2 years after surgery using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Form. Patients interviewed by telephone were only subjectively evaluated. The side-to-side difference in anterior laxity at a manual maximum force was measured using the KT-2000 Arthrometer^®.

RESULTS

Among the 125 patients, 99 were ultimately included and 26 were lost to follow-up (follow-up rate: 79%). Eight patients had re-tear (re-tear rate: 8%) and six patients had ACL injuries to the contralateral knee. Three patients did not follow our rehabilitation programme. One patient suffered septic arthritis. These 18 patients were considered ineligible for clinical evaluations. Therefore, clinical evaluations were performed in 81 of the 99 patients (64 were available for direct follow-up and 17 were available for a telephone interview). The follow-up period was 30 ± 10 months (range 24-68 months). According to the IKDC subjective assessment, 48 (59%) and 33 (41%) knees were graded as normal and nearly normal, respectively. A loss of extension (3°-5°) was observed in five patients (8%), whereas one patient (2%) exhibited a loss of flexion (3°-5°). The Lachman test was negative in 63 patients (98%). The pivot shift test was negative in 59 patients (92%). The side-to-side difference in KT value was 0.4 ± 0.7 mm (range - 1-4 mm).

CONCLUSION

Anatomical rectangular tunnel ACL reconstruction with a BTB graft using an adjustable-length femoral cortical fixation device provided excellent clinical outcomes both subjectively and objectively more than 2 years after surgery, whereas 8 of the 99 patients had re-tear of the graft. The adjustable-length femoral cortical fixation device could be safely used in anatomical rectangular tunnel ACL reconstruction with a BTB graft.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

In Vitro Testing of 2 Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspensory Fixation Systems Versus Interference Screw for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background:

It is not clear whether the mechanical strength of adjustable-loop suspension devices (ALDs) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is device dependent and if these constructs are different from those of an interference screw.

Purpose:

To compare the biomechanical differences of 2 types of ALDs versus an interference screw.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

ACL reconstruction was performed on porcine femurs and bovine extensor tendons with 3 types of fixation devices: interference screw, UltraButton (UB) ALD, and TightRope (TR) ALD (n = 10 for each). In addition to specimen testing, isolated testing of the 2 ALDs was performed. The loading protocol consisted of 3 stages: preload (static 150 N load for 5 minutes), cyclic load (50-250 N at 1 Hz for 1000 cycles), and load to failure (crosshead speed 50 mm/min). Displacement at different cycles, ultimate failure load, yield load, stiffness, and failure mode were recorded.

Results:

In specimen testing, displacement of the ALDs at the 1000th cycle was similar (3.42 ± 1.34 mm for TR and 3.39 ± 0.92 mm for UB), but both were significantly lower than that of the interference screw (7.54 ± 3.18 mm) (P < .001 for both). The yield load of the UB (547 ± 173 N) was higher than that of the TR (420 ± 72 N) (P = .033) or the interference screw (386 ± 51 N; P = .013), with no significant difference between the latter 2. In isolated device testing, the ultimate failure load of the TR (862 ± 64 N) was significantly lower than that of the UB (1879 ± 126 N) (P < .001).

Conclusion:

Both ALDs showed significantly less displacement in cyclic loading at ultimate failure than the interference screw. The yield load of the UB was significantly higher than that of the other 2. The ultimate failure occurred at a significantly higher load for UB than it did for TR in isolated device testing.

Clinical Relevance:

Both UB and TR provided stronger fixation than an interference screw. Although difficult to assess, intrinsic differences in the mechanical properties of these ALDs may affect clinical outcomes.

Outcomes of retro-drilled all-inside tibial tunnel vs complete tibial tunnel techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-a comparative study

PURPOSE

The all-inside tibial tunnel preparation technique of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction differs from traditional complete tibial tunnel technique in using closed tibial sockets, dual-cortical suspensory graft-fixation, quadrupled semitendinosus tendon graft and lesser bone removal. The study aims to find out if all-inside technique differs from complete tibial tunnel technique of single bundle ACL reconstruction in terms of graft dimensions, functional and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective comparative study was conducted including 80 patients with isolated ACL tears, divided into 2 groups of 40 patients each without any randomization. The two techniques differed in tibial tunnel preparation. Group 1 underwent ACL reconstruction with a complete tibial tunnel drilled from the anteromedial tibial cortex and group 2 underwent all-inside tibial socket preparation. Duration of the surgery, perioperative and midterm complications were noted. All patients had 24 month follow-up. Functional outcome scores (Tegner-Lysholm knee scoring scale and IKDC score) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months and 24 months. Hamstring and quadriceps muscle strength was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months, 9 months and 24 months. Visual analogue score (VAS) for knee pain was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at day 2, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months and 24 months.

RESULTS

Quadrupled semitendinosus tendon graft was significantly thicker than doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons graft (8.17 ± 0.58 vs 8.71 ± 0.4, p < 0.0001). The VAS score for knee pain at 2 and 6 weeks were lower in group 2 (5.75 ± 0.6 and 1.78 ± 1.0) as compared to group 1 (6.50 ± 0.5 and 2.5 ± 0.8) and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0007 and p = 0.002 respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in functional outcome scores and quadriceps muscle strength between the two groups. However, there were significant difference in hamstring power in two groups.

CONCLUSION

The all-inside technique has the advantages of using a single tendon graft, lesser early postoperative pain with similar clinical and functional outcomes compared to the complete tibial tunnel technique. Level of Evidence IIProspective comparative study.