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

Gerardo L Garcés; Oscar Martel; Alejandro Yánez; Ignacio Manchado-Herrera; Luci M Motta

doi:10.1177/23259671211031652

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

Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Sep 28;9(9):23259671211031652. doi: 10.1177/23259671211031652. eCollection 2021 Sep.

Authors

Gerardo L Garcés¹, Oscar Martel², Alejandro Yánez², Ignacio Manchado-Herrera³, Luci M Motta³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain.
² Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain.
³ University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; biomechanical testing; interference screw; suspensory fixation.