In vitro biomechanical testing of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Traditional versus physiologically relevant load analysis

• Published in: The knee Vol. 18; no. 3; pp. 193 - 201
• Main Authors: Trump, Mark, Palathinkal, Darren M, Beaupre, Lauren, Otto, Dave, Leung, Paul, Amirfazli, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01-06-2011; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: ACL; Animals; Anterior Cruciate Ligament - physiopathology; Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Biomechanical Phenomena; Biosteon Cross-Pin; Cattle; Disease Models, Animal; EndoButton CL; Force-elongation analysis; Knee Injuries - physiopathology; Knee Injuries - surgery; Ligament; Orthopedics; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods; Stiffness; Toe region; Weight-Bearing - physiology; Force-elongation analysis; Toe region; Ligament; EndoButton CL; Stiffness; ACL; Biosteon Cross-Pin
• ISSN: 0968-0160; 1873-5800
• DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.04.011

Abstract Various anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft-fixation devices exist. In this in vitro study a comparison of biomechanical characteristics of the Cross-Pin and button type fixation devices under practical rehabilitation loads was done. Forty bovine knees and hoof extensor tendons were harvested. After disarticulation, the femoral end of an ACL was prepared with either fixation, using the extensor tendon as graft. The mechanical test was either a single load to failure or load to failure after cycling loads. Twenty specimens were loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s, remaining specimens were cycled between 50 and 250 N for 1000 cycles then failure tested in a similar manner. Results show that both forms of fixation are able to withstand loads that exceed those observed in performing functional activities. Activity-specific stiffness (loads comparable to walking, jogging and stair descent) was lower than linear stiffness for both EndoButton and Cross-Pin, without prior cycling. After cycling, activity-specific stiffness increased to linear stiffness values for the Cross-Pin for all activities. Thus, suggesting that the Cross-Pin provides a more rigid fixation after initial implantation over a wider range of activities, which would theoretically permit a more aggressive rehabilitation protocol and possibly an earlier return to regular activity. In contrast, activity-specific stiffness increased above linear stiffness values for the EndoButton only under heavier loads (jogging and stair descent). Dynamic stiffness was higher and displacement lower for Cross-Pin throughout the cycle test. These results indicate, in ACL reconstruction, that graft complex stiffness should be considered at relevant loads only.