A Biomechanical Comparison of Initial Fixation Strength of 3 Different Methods of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Soft Tissue Graft Tibial Fixation: Resistance to Monotonic and Cyclic Loading
Background Tibial fixation of soft tissue grafts continues to be problematic in the early postoperative period after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Hypothesis No differences exist for resistance to slippage of soft tissue grafts fixed with CentraLoc, Intrafix, or 35-mm bioabsorbable inte...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of sports medicine 2007-06, Vol.35 (6), p.949-954 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 954 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 949 |
| container_title | The American journal of sports medicine |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Bartz, Reed L. Mossoni, Kory Tyber, Jeffrey Tokish, John Gall, Kenneth Siparsky, Patrick N. |
| description | Background
Tibial fixation of soft tissue grafts continues to be problematic in the early postoperative period after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Hypothesis
No differences exist for resistance to slippage of soft tissue grafts fixed with CentraLoc, Intrafix, or 35-mm bioabsorbable interference screws.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Bovine tibia and hoof extensor tendons were divided into 3 matched groups with 12 tibia and 12 extensor tendons in each group. Within each group, 6 specimens underwent monotonic loading to failure (1 mm/s), and 6 underwent cyclic loading (10 000 cycles, 125-325 N, 1 Hz).
Results
No statistically significant differences were noted in mean load to failure or stiffness. The mean load to failure (and stiffness) for the 3 types of fixation were as follows: bioabsorbable interference screw, 631.6 ± 130.1 N (88.17 ± 6.79 N/mm); Intrafix, 644.3 ± 195.2 N (81.65 ± 16.5 N/mm); and CentraLoc, 791.1 ± 72.7 N (77.89 ± 7.07 N/mm). The slippage rates under cyclic loading for the 3 types of fixation were bioabsorbable interference screw, 0.336 ± 0.074 µm/cycle; Intrafix, 27.2 ± 31.6 µm/cycle; and CentraLoc, 0.0355 ± 0.0046 µm/cycle. In this model, CentraLoc proved statistically superior in resistance to cyclic loading compared with the bioabsorbable interference screw (P < .05) and Intrafix (P < .0001). The bioabsorbable interference screw proved statistically superior to Intrafix in resistance to cyclic loading (P < .05).
Conclusions
In this bovine model, CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws provided superior resistance to cyclic loading compared with Intrafix.
Clinical Relevance
CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws showed superior resistance to cyclic loading, which may indicate an increased resistance to clinical failure. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0363546507301881 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70516978</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A165764815</galeid><sage_id>10.1177_0363546507301881</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A165764815</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-f88365bf2032a882197fccdac7a3a249f7f50737445fea7a80231a2dff12d6643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtv1DAUhS0EokNhzwp5A7uAH_EjyyHQUmlQFy3r6I5jz7hK4sF2pPIn-M04zEiDkBAry-d-9_r4HoReU_KeUqU-EC65qKUgihOqNX2CVlQIVnEuxVO0WsrVUr9AL1J6IIRQJfVzdEFVzQURzQr9XOOPPozW7GHyBgbchvEA0acw4eDwzeSzL-qVf4Tsi3aXo512eb8UOf7knbNFyPirzfvQp0VeT9lGHyJu42w8ZIs3fgfjQt0Fl_G9T2m2-DrC78v2z_kv0TMHQ7KvTucl-nb1-b79Um1ur2_a9aYyXKtcOa3LD7eOEc5Aa0Yb5YzpwSjgwOrGKbfsRNW1cBYUaMI4BdY7R1kvZc0v0bvj3EMM32ebcjf6ZOwwwGTDnDpFBJWN0v8FaSNFQxUrYHUEdzDYzk8mlDU8ZhOGwe5sV9y3t92aSqFkrakoPDnyJoaUonXdIfoR4o-Okm4Jt_s73NLy5uRl3o62Pzec0izA2xMAqWTpIkzGpzOnVVPXjTh7TVCsPYQ5TmXZ_374F197uFY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19659172</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Biomechanical Comparison of Initial Fixation Strength of 3 Different Methods of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Soft Tissue Graft Tibial Fixation: Resistance to Monotonic and Cyclic Loading</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bartz, Reed L. ; Mossoni, Kory ; Tyber, Jeffrey ; Tokish, John ; Gall, Kenneth ; Siparsky, Patrick N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bartz, Reed L. ; Mossoni, Kory ; Tyber, Jeffrey ; Tokish, John ; Gall, Kenneth ; Siparsky, Patrick N.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Tibial fixation of soft tissue grafts continues to be problematic in the early postoperative period after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Hypothesis
No differences exist for resistance to slippage of soft tissue grafts fixed with CentraLoc, Intrafix, or 35-mm bioabsorbable interference screws.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Bovine tibia and hoof extensor tendons were divided into 3 matched groups with 12 tibia and 12 extensor tendons in each group. Within each group, 6 specimens underwent monotonic loading to failure (1 mm/s), and 6 underwent cyclic loading (10 000 cycles, 125-325 N, 1 Hz).
Results
No statistically significant differences were noted in mean load to failure or stiffness. The mean load to failure (and stiffness) for the 3 types of fixation were as follows: bioabsorbable interference screw, 631.6 ± 130.1 N (88.17 ± 6.79 N/mm); Intrafix, 644.3 ± 195.2 N (81.65 ± 16.5 N/mm); and CentraLoc, 791.1 ± 72.7 N (77.89 ± 7.07 N/mm). The slippage rates under cyclic loading for the 3 types of fixation were bioabsorbable interference screw, 0.336 ± 0.074 µm/cycle; Intrafix, 27.2 ± 31.6 µm/cycle; and CentraLoc, 0.0355 ± 0.0046 µm/cycle. In this model, CentraLoc proved statistically superior in resistance to cyclic loading compared with the bioabsorbable interference screw (P < .05) and Intrafix (P < .0001). The bioabsorbable interference screw proved statistically superior to Intrafix in resistance to cyclic loading (P < .05).
Conclusions
In this bovine model, CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws provided superior resistance to cyclic loading compared with Intrafix.
Clinical Relevance
CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws showed superior resistance to cyclic loading, which may indicate an increased resistance to clinical failure.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-5465</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3365</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0363546507301881</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17435059</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJSMDO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Animals ; Anterior cruciate ligament ; Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Biomechanics. Biorheology ; Care and treatment ; Cattle ; Connective Tissue - surgery ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Injuries ; Internal Fixators ; Knee ; Knee injuries ; Medical sciences ; Sport (general aspects) ; Sports injuries ; Tibia ; Tissues, organs and organisms biophysics ; Transplants ; Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents ; United States ; Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports ; Weight-Bearing</subject><ispartof>The American journal of sports medicine, 2007-06, Vol.35 (6), p.949-954</ispartof><rights>2007 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2007 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-f88365bf2032a882197fccdac7a3a249f7f50737445fea7a80231a2dff12d6643</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0363546507301881$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0363546507301881$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18794495$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17435059$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bartz, Reed L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mossoni, Kory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tyber, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tokish, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gall, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siparsky, Patrick N.</creatorcontrib><title>A Biomechanical Comparison of Initial Fixation Strength of 3 Different Methods of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Soft Tissue Graft Tibial Fixation: Resistance to Monotonic and Cyclic Loading</title><title>The American journal of sports medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Sports Med</addtitle><description>Background
Tibial fixation of soft tissue grafts continues to be problematic in the early postoperative period after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Hypothesis
No differences exist for resistance to slippage of soft tissue grafts fixed with CentraLoc, Intrafix, or 35-mm bioabsorbable interference screws.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Bovine tibia and hoof extensor tendons were divided into 3 matched groups with 12 tibia and 12 extensor tendons in each group. Within each group, 6 specimens underwent monotonic loading to failure (1 mm/s), and 6 underwent cyclic loading (10 000 cycles, 125-325 N, 1 Hz).
Results
No statistically significant differences were noted in mean load to failure or stiffness. The mean load to failure (and stiffness) for the 3 types of fixation were as follows: bioabsorbable interference screw, 631.6 ± 130.1 N (88.17 ± 6.79 N/mm); Intrafix, 644.3 ± 195.2 N (81.65 ± 16.5 N/mm); and CentraLoc, 791.1 ± 72.7 N (77.89 ± 7.07 N/mm). The slippage rates under cyclic loading for the 3 types of fixation were bioabsorbable interference screw, 0.336 ± 0.074 µm/cycle; Intrafix, 27.2 ± 31.6 µm/cycle; and CentraLoc, 0.0355 ± 0.0046 µm/cycle. In this model, CentraLoc proved statistically superior in resistance to cyclic loading compared with the bioabsorbable interference screw (P < .05) and Intrafix (P < .0001). The bioabsorbable interference screw proved statistically superior to Intrafix in resistance to cyclic loading (P < .05).
Conclusions
In this bovine model, CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws provided superior resistance to cyclic loading compared with Intrafix.
Clinical Relevance
CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws showed superior resistance to cyclic loading, which may indicate an increased resistance to clinical failure.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anterior cruciate ligament</subject><subject>Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Biomechanics. Biorheology</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Connective Tissue - surgery</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Internal Fixators</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Knee injuries</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Sport (general aspects)</subject><subject>Sports injuries</subject><subject>Tibia</subject><subject>Tissues, organs and organisms biophysics</subject><subject>Transplants</subject><subject>Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports</subject><subject>Weight-Bearing</subject><issn>0363-5465</issn><issn>1552-3365</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtv1DAUhS0EokNhzwp5A7uAH_EjyyHQUmlQFy3r6I5jz7hK4sF2pPIn-M04zEiDkBAry-d-9_r4HoReU_KeUqU-EC65qKUgihOqNX2CVlQIVnEuxVO0WsrVUr9AL1J6IIRQJfVzdEFVzQURzQr9XOOPPozW7GHyBgbchvEA0acw4eDwzeSzL-qVf4Tsi3aXo512eb8UOf7knbNFyPirzfvQp0VeT9lGHyJu42w8ZIs3fgfjQt0Fl_G9T2m2-DrC78v2z_kv0TMHQ7KvTucl-nb1-b79Um1ur2_a9aYyXKtcOa3LD7eOEc5Aa0Yb5YzpwSjgwOrGKbfsRNW1cBYUaMI4BdY7R1kvZc0v0bvj3EMM32ebcjf6ZOwwwGTDnDpFBJWN0v8FaSNFQxUrYHUEdzDYzk8mlDU8ZhOGwe5sV9y3t92aSqFkrakoPDnyJoaUonXdIfoR4o-Okm4Jt_s73NLy5uRl3o62Pzec0izA2xMAqWTpIkzGpzOnVVPXjTh7TVCsPYQ5TmXZ_374F197uFY</recordid><startdate>20070601</startdate><enddate>20070601</enddate><creator>Bartz, Reed L.</creator><creator>Mossoni, Kory</creator><creator>Tyber, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Tokish, John</creator><creator>Gall, Kenneth</creator><creator>Siparsky, Patrick N.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070601</creationdate><title>A Biomechanical Comparison of Initial Fixation Strength of 3 Different Methods of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Soft Tissue Graft Tibial Fixation</title><author>Bartz, Reed L. ; Mossoni, Kory ; Tyber, Jeffrey ; Tokish, John ; Gall, Kenneth ; Siparsky, Patrick N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-f88365bf2032a882197fccdac7a3a249f7f50737445fea7a80231a2dff12d6643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anterior cruciate ligament</topic><topic>Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Biomechanics. Biorheology</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Connective Tissue - surgery</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Internal Fixators</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Knee injuries</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Sport (general aspects)</topic><topic>Sports injuries</topic><topic>Tibia</topic><topic>Tissues, organs and organisms biophysics</topic><topic>Transplants</topic><topic>Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports</topic><topic>Weight-Bearing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bartz, Reed L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mossoni, Kory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tyber, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tokish, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gall, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siparsky, Patrick N.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of sports medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bartz, Reed L.</au><au>Mossoni, Kory</au><au>Tyber, Jeffrey</au><au>Tokish, John</au><au>Gall, Kenneth</au><au>Siparsky, Patrick N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Biomechanical Comparison of Initial Fixation Strength of 3 Different Methods of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Soft Tissue Graft Tibial Fixation: Resistance to Monotonic and Cyclic Loading</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of sports medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Sports Med</addtitle><date>2007-06-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>949</spage><epage>954</epage><pages>949-954</pages><issn>0363-5465</issn><eissn>1552-3365</eissn><coden>AJSMDO</coden><abstract>Background
Tibial fixation of soft tissue grafts continues to be problematic in the early postoperative period after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Hypothesis
No differences exist for resistance to slippage of soft tissue grafts fixed with CentraLoc, Intrafix, or 35-mm bioabsorbable interference screws.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Bovine tibia and hoof extensor tendons were divided into 3 matched groups with 12 tibia and 12 extensor tendons in each group. Within each group, 6 specimens underwent monotonic loading to failure (1 mm/s), and 6 underwent cyclic loading (10 000 cycles, 125-325 N, 1 Hz).
Results
No statistically significant differences were noted in mean load to failure or stiffness. The mean load to failure (and stiffness) for the 3 types of fixation were as follows: bioabsorbable interference screw, 631.6 ± 130.1 N (88.17 ± 6.79 N/mm); Intrafix, 644.3 ± 195.2 N (81.65 ± 16.5 N/mm); and CentraLoc, 791.1 ± 72.7 N (77.89 ± 7.07 N/mm). The slippage rates under cyclic loading for the 3 types of fixation were bioabsorbable interference screw, 0.336 ± 0.074 µm/cycle; Intrafix, 27.2 ± 31.6 µm/cycle; and CentraLoc, 0.0355 ± 0.0046 µm/cycle. In this model, CentraLoc proved statistically superior in resistance to cyclic loading compared with the bioabsorbable interference screw (P < .05) and Intrafix (P < .0001). The bioabsorbable interference screw proved statistically superior to Intrafix in resistance to cyclic loading (P < .05).
Conclusions
In this bovine model, CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws provided superior resistance to cyclic loading compared with Intrafix.
Clinical Relevance
CentraLoc and bioabsorbable interference screws showed superior resistance to cyclic loading, which may indicate an increased resistance to clinical failure.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>17435059</pmid><doi>10.1177/0363546507301881</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0363-5465 |
| ispartof | The American journal of sports medicine, 2007-06, Vol.35 (6), p.949-954 |
| issn | 0363-5465 1552-3365 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70516978 |
| source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Analysis Animals Anterior cruciate ligament Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery Biological and medical sciences Biomechanical Phenomena Biomechanics. Biorheology Care and treatment Cattle Connective Tissue - surgery Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Injuries Internal Fixators Knee Knee injuries Medical sciences Sport (general aspects) Sports injuries Tibia Tissues, organs and organisms biophysics Transplants Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents United States Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports Weight-Bearing |
| title | A Biomechanical Comparison of Initial Fixation Strength of 3 Different Methods of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Soft Tissue Graft Tibial Fixation: Resistance to Monotonic and Cyclic Loading |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T00%3A34%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Biomechanical%20Comparison%20of%20Initial%20Fixation%20Strength%20of%203%20Different%20Methods%20of%20Anterior%20Cruciate%20Ligament%20Soft%20Tissue%20Graft%20Tibial%20Fixation:%20Resistance%20to%20Monotonic%20and%20Cyclic%20Loading&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20sports%20medicine&rft.au=Bartz,%20Reed%20L.&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=949&rft.epage=954&rft.pages=949-954&rft.issn=0363-5465&rft.eissn=1552-3365&rft.coden=AJSMDO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0363546507301881&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA165764815%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19659172&rft_id=info:pmid/17435059&rft_galeid=A165764815&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0363546507301881&rfr_iscdi=true |