A biomechanical comparison of six different double loop configurations for use in the lateral fabella suture technique

A. M. Wallace; E. D. Cutting; M. P. F. Sutcliffe; S. J. Langley-Hobbs

doi:10.3415/VCOT-07-10-0095

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21(05): 391-399
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-07-10-0095

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

A biomechanical comparison of six different double loop configurations for use in the lateral fabella suture technique

Authors

A. M. Wallace

¹Queens Veterinary School Hospital, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
E. D. Cutting

¹Queens Veterinary School Hospital, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
M. P. F. Sutcliffe

²Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
S. J. Langley-Hobbs

¹Queens Veterinary School Hospital, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Abstract

Summary

Six different double loop configurations which could be applied to the lateral fabella suture (LFS) technique were subjected to in vitro mechanical testing. Three double loop, single strand and three double loop, double strand configurations were tested. The strongest configuration, with a significantly higher mean ultimate load and load at yield, was the interlocking loop configuration. This is a novel configuration which has not previously been reported. The three double loop, single strand configurations all had higher mean ultimate loads than the double loop, double strand configurations. The double strand group with uneven loop length performed very poorly, with significantly lower mean stiffness and ultimate load than all of the single strand groups. This group also developed unacceptably high levels of elongation during high level cyclic loading.

Keywords

Cranial cruciate ligament - double loop - Securos® - crimp tubes - Mechanical testing

Full Text

References

References
1 Innes JF, Bacon D, Lynch C. et al. Long term outcome of surgery for dogs with cranial cruciate ligament deficiency. Vet Rec 2000; 147: 325-328.
2 Lampman TJ, Lund EM, Lipowitz AJ. Cranial cruciate disease: current status of diagnosis, surgery, and risk for disease. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 122-126.
3 Leighton RL. Preferred method of repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: A survery of ACVS Diplomates specialising in canine orthopaedics. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 194.
4 Piermattei DL, Flo GL, De Camp CE. The stifle joint.. In: Brinker, Piermattei and Flo’s Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. 4thed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2006: 587-632.
5 Olmstead ML. The use of orthopedic wire as a lateral suture for stifle stabilization. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1993; 23: 735-753.
6 Korvick DL, Johnson AL, Schaeffer DJ. Surgeon’s preferences in treating cranial cruciate ligament ruptures in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994; 205: 1318-1324.
7 Moore KW, Read RA. Rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs - Part II. Diagnosis and management. Comp Cont Ed 1996; 18: 381-391.
8 Metelman LA, Schwarz PD, Salman M. et al. An evaluation of three different surgical stabilisation procedures as they relate to postoperative meniscal injuires. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8: 118-123.
9 Schulz K. Diseases of the joints.. In: Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. Fossum TW (ed). Mosby St Louis: Elsevier; 2007: 1143-1315.
10 Securos online catalogue:. http://www.securos.com. Last accessed February 12,2008.
11 Veterinary Instrumentation online catalogue:. http://www.vetinst.com. Last accessed February 12,2008.
12 McKee WM, Miller A. A self locking knot for lateral fabellotibial suture stabilisation of the cranial cruciate ligament deficient stifle in the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 78-80.
13 Vasseur PB. The stifle joint.. In: Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. Slatter D(Ed). Philadelphia: WB. Saunders; 2003: 2090-2133.
14 Sandman KM, Harari J. Canine cruciate ligament repair techniques: is one best?. Vet Med 2001; 96: 850-856.
15 Moores AP, Beck AL, Jespers KJM. et al. Mechanical evaluation of two loop tensioning methods for crimp clamp extracapsular stabilization of the cranial cruciate ligament-deficient canine stifle. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 476-479.
16 Caporn TM, Roe SC. Biomechanical evaluation of the suitability of monofilament nylon fishing and leader line for extra-articular stabilisation of the canine cruciate deficient stifle. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 9: 126-133.
17 Nwadike BS, Roe SC. Mechanical comparison of suture material and knot type used for fabello-tibial sutures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11: 47-52.
18 Lewis DD, Milthorpe BK, Bellenger CR. Mechanical comparison of materials used for extracapsular stabilisation of the stifle joint in dogs. Aust Vet J 1997; 75: 890-896.
19 Sicard GK, Hayashi K, Manley PA. Evaluation of 5 types of fishing material, 2 sterilisation methods, and a crimp-clamp system for extra-articular stabilization of the canine stifle joint. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 78-94.
20 Banwell MN, Kerwin SC, Hosgood G. et al. In vitro evaluation of the 18 and 36kg Securos Cranial Cruciate Ligament Repair System. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 283-288.
21 Anderson CC, Tomlinson JL, Daly WR. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a crimp clamp system for loop fixation of monofilament nylon leader material used for stabilization of the canine stifle joint. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 533-539.
22 Peycke LE, Kerwin SC, Hosgood G. et al. Mechanical comparison of six loop fixation methods with monofilament nylon leader line. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2002; 15: 210-214.
23 Moores AP, Beck AL, Jespers KJM. et al. Mechanical evaluation of two crimp clamp systems for extracapsular stabilization of the cranial cruciate ligament-deficient canine stifle. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 470-475.
24 Holmlund DEW. Knot properties of surgical suture materials. Acta Chir Scand 1974; 140: 355-362.
25 Rosin E, Robinson GM. Knot security of suture materials. Vet Surg 1989; 18: 269-273.
26 Tera H, Aberg C. Tensile strengths of twelve types of knot employed in surgery, using different suture materials. Acta Chir Scand 1976; 142: 1-7.
27 Thacker JG, Rodeheaver G, Moore JW. et al. Mechanical performance of surgical sutures. Am J Surg 1975; 130: 374-380.
28 Huber DJ, Egger EL, James SP. The effect of knotting method on the structural properties of large diameter nonabsorbable monofilament sutures. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 260-267.
29 Coetzee GL. An in vitro comparison of two replacement techniques utilising fascia lata after cranial cruciate ligament transection in the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 6: 85-92.
30 Butler DL, Hulse DA, Kay MD. et al. Biomechanics of cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction in the dog. 2. Mechanical properties. Vet Surg 1983; 12: 113-118.
31 Bruchman WC, Bolton CW, Bain JR. Design considerations for cruciate ligament prostheses.. In: The Anterior Cruciate Deficient Knee, New concepts in Ligament Repair. St Louis: Mosby; 1987: 254-272.
32 Hyman W, Hulse D, Saunders B. et al. Strain analysis of femoral and tibial anchorage sites for extraarticular reconstruction of the cranial cruciate deficient stifle joint. 28th Veterinary Orthopedic Society Annual Conference, Chateau Lake Louise. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2001; 14: A6-32A.
32A Roe SC, Kue J, Gemma J. Isometry of potential suture attachment sites for the cranial cruciate ligament deficient canine stifle. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 215-220.
33 Banwell MN, Hosgood G, Hedlund CS. et al. In vitro evaluation of fluorocarbon leader line for use as a fabella-tibial suture. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17: 35-40.
34 Budsberg SC, Vestraete MC, Soutas-Little RW. et al. Force plate analysis before and after stabilisation of canine stifles for cruciate injury. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49: 1522-1524.
35 McCartney WT, O’Connor JV, McCann WM. Incidence of infection and premature crimp failure after repair of cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifles in 110 dogs. Vet Rec 2007; 161: 232-233.
36 Vianna ML, Roe SC. Mechanical comparison of two knots and two crimp systems for securing nylon line used for extra-articular stabilization of the canine stifle. Vet Surg 2006; 25: 567-572.
37 Patterson RH, Smith GK, Gregor TP. et al. Biomechanical stability of four cranial cruciate ligament repair techniques in the dog. Vet Surg 1991; 20: 85-90.
38 Hulse DA, Butler DL, Kay MD. et al. Biomechanics of cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction in the dog. 1. In vitro laxity testing. Vet Surg 1983; 12: 109-112.