Screw oversizing for anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation in primary and enlarged tibial tunnels: A biomechanical study in a porcine model.

BACKGROUND: Ideal diameter for tibial interference screw fixation of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft remains controversial. Tibial graft fixation with screws matching the tunnel diameter vs. one-millimetre oversized screws were compared. METHODS: In 32 cadaveric porcine tibiae, bovine extensor tendons with a diameter of eight millimetres were fixed in (I) a primary ACL reconstruction scenario with eight-millimetre tibial tunnels (pACL), with eight-millimetre (pACL-8) vs. nine-millimetre (pACL-9) screws, and (II) a revision ACL reconstruction scenario with enlarged tunnels of 10 mm (rACL), with 10-mm (rACL-10) vs. 11-mm (rACL-11) screws. Specimens underwent cyclic loading with low and high load magnitudes followed by a load-to-failure test. Graft slippage and ultimate failure load were recorded. RESULTS: In comparison with matched-sized screws (pACL-8), fixation with oversized screws (pACL-9) showed with significantly increased graft slippage during cyclic loading at higher load magnitudes (1.19 ±â€¯0.23 vs. 1.98 ±â€¯0.67 mm; P = 0.007). There were no significant differences between the two screw sizes in the revision scenario (rACL-10 vs. rACL-11; P = 0.38). Graft fixation in the revision scenario resulted in significantly increased graft slippage in comparison with fixation in primary tunnels at higher loads (pACL vs. rACL; P = 0.004). Pull-out strengths were comparable for both scenarios and all screw sizes (P > 0.316). CONCLUSIONS: Matched-sized interference screws provided better ACL graft fixation in comparison with an oversized screw diameter. In revision cases, the fixation strength of interference screws in enlarged tunnels was inferior to the fixation strength in primary tunnels.

Timing of PMMA cement application for pedicle screw augmentation affects screw anchorage.

INTRODUCTION: Cement augmentation is an established method to increase the pedicle screw (PS) anchorage in osteoporotic vertebral bodies. The ideal timing for augmentation when a reposition maneuver is necessary is controversial. While augmentation of the PS before reposition maneuver may increase the force applied it on the vertebrae, it bears the risk to impair PS anchorage, whereas augmenting the PS after the maneuver may restore this anchorage and prevent early screw loosening. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of cement application timing on PS anchorage in the osteoporotic vertebral body. METHODS: Ten lumbar vertebrae (L1-L5) were used for testing. The left and right pedicles of each vertebra were instrumented with the same PS size and used for pairwise comparison of the two timing points for augmentation. For the reposition maneuver, the left PS was loaded axially under displacement control (2 × ±2 mm, 3 × ±6 mm, 3 × ±10 mm) to simulate a reposition maneuver. Subsequently, both PS were augmented with 2 ml PMMA cement. The same force as measured during the left PS maneuver was applied to the previously augmented right hand side PS [2 × F (±2 mm), 3 × F (±6 mm), 3 × F (±10 mm)]. Both PS were cyclically loaded with initial forces of +50 and -50 N, while the lower force was increased by 5 N every 100 cycles until total failure of the PS. The PS motion was measured with a 3D motion analysis system. After cyclic loading stress, X-rays were taken to identify the PS loosening mechanism. RESULTS: In comparison with PS augmented prior to the reposition maneuver, PS augmented after the reposition maneuver showed a significant higher number of load cycles until failure (5930 ± 1899 vs 3830 ± 1706, p = 0.015). The predominant loosening mechanism for PS augmented after the reposition maneuver was PS toggling with the attached cement cloud within the trabecular bone. While PS augmented prior to the reposition, maneuver showed a motion of the screw within the cement cloud. CONCLUSION: The time of cement application has an effect on PS anchorage in the osteoporotic vertebral body if a reposition maneuver of the instrumented vertebrae is carried out. PS augmented after the reposition maneuver showed a significant higher number of load cycles until screw loosening.

Preparation techniques for all-inside ACL cortical button grafts: a biomechanical study.

PURPOSE: Performing all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using cortical button fixation, the tendon graft has to be secured in a closed loop with sutures. In the present study, the graft secured with four sutures was compared with two reduced-suture material graft preparation techniques. METHODS: A bovine tendon graft folded over two adjustable-length loop cortical button devices was secured using the following techniques: 1, four buried-knot sutures; 2, two sutures on the tibial end only; and 3, two sutures on the tibial graft end with additional suspension on the tibial cortical button. Each group consisted of eight specimens and underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure test. RESULTS: The least graft elongation after cyclic loading was observed for the graft with four sutures (6.1 ± 0.6 mm), followed by the graft with two sutures and additional suspension (6.3 ± 0.8 mm) and the graft with two sutures (7.0 ± 0.7 mm). The difference in graft elongation between four sutures and only two sutures was significant (P < 0.05). The ultimate failure loads were highest for the graft with two sutures and additional suspension (801 ± 107 N), followed by the graft with four sutures (766 ± 70 N), and the graft with two sutures (699 ± 87 N). No significant (n.s.) differences were observed between the ultimate failure loads in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: For the reduction in suture material to two sutures, additional suspension can be used in order to reduce the graft lengthening. Performing a suture-reducing graft can save operating time and costs. However, each of the three all-inside button graft techniques showed considerable graft elongation indicating a risk of graft lengthening in the early postoperative period.

Biomechanical comparison of 2 anterior cruciate ligament graft preparation techniques for tibial fixation: adjustable-length loop cortical button or interference screw.

BACKGROUND: Cortical button fixation at the femoral side and interference screws within the tibial bone tunnel are widely used for anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation. Using a bone socket instead of a full tunnel allows cortical button fixation on the tibial side as well. If adjustable-length loop cortical button devices are used for femoral and tibial fixation, the tendon graft has to be secured with sutures in a closed tendon loop. The increased distance of fixation points and potential slippage of the tendon strands at the securing sutures might lead to greater risk of postoperative graft elongation when compared with conventional graft preparation with tibial interference screw fixation. HYPOTHESIS: Compared with an anterior cruciate ligament graft with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation, a graft with tibial interference screw fixation will show less graft elongation during cyclic loading and lower ultimate failure loads. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation and grafts with tibial interference screw fixation were biomechanically tested in calf tibiae (n = 10 per group). Femoral fixation was equivalent for both groups, using an adjustable-length loop cortical button. Specimens underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure test. RESULTS: Grafts with screw fixation showed significantly less initial elongation (cycles 1-5: 1.46 ± 0.26 mm), secondary elongation (cycles 6-1000: 1.87 ± 0.67 mm), and total elongation (cycles 1-1000: 3.33 ± 0.83 mm) in comparison with grafts with button fixation (2.47 ± 0.26, 3.56 ± 0.39, and 6.03 ± 0.61 mm, respectively) (P < .001). While pull-out stiffness was significantly higher for grafts with screw fixation (309.5 ± 33.2 vs 185.6 ± 16.4 N/mm) (P < .001), grafts with button fixation were able to withstand significantly higher ultimate failure loads (908 ± 74 vs 693 ± 119 N) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation resulted in higher graft elongation during cyclic loading and showed higher ultimate failure loads in comparison with conventional graft preparation with tibial interference screw fixation at time zero. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this biomechanical study suggest that grafts with tibial interference screw fixation provide better knee stability at time zero because of reduced graft elongation and greater stiffness in comparison with grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation.