Biomechanical Comparison of Four Methods of Fixation of a Polymeric Cranial Cruciate Ligament in the Canine Femur and TibiaFunding This study was funded by the Securos Orthopedic Institute, Securos Surgical, Fiskdale MA.
23 August 2018
09 October 2018
13 February 2019 (eFirst)
Objective The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of four different methods of artificial cranial cruciate ligament fixation in canine cadaveric tibias and femurs.
Methods Femurs and tibias from skeletally mature large breed canine cadavers were assigned into four fixation groups: group 1, 4.5-mm interference screw (IS); group 2, 4.5-mm IS and 4.0-mm screw and spiked washer (SW); group 3, 5.0-mm IS; group 4, 5.0-mm IS + SW.
Results The mean ultimate load was significantly greater for femur fixations than for tibias, when a SW was added, and for 5.0-mm IS compared with 4.5-mm sizes. There was also a significant interaction between SW and IS size. A SW significantly increased stiffness, a 5.0-mm IS in femurs provided more stiffness than 4.5-mm IS and was greater than 5.0-mm IS in tibias. In tibias, a 4.5-mm IS was stiffer than a 5.0-mm IS and a 4.5 IS + SW had greater stiffness than a 5.0-mm IS + SW. Groups 1 to 3 and tibias in group 4 failed by artificial ligament pullout. Nine femurs in group 4 failed by fracture, 5 by artificial ligament pullout, and 1 by artificial ligament tearing.
Clinical Significance A 5.0-mm IS + SW provided superior artificial ligament fixation strength in femurs and tibias compared with a 4.5-mm IS without SW. Overall, artificial ligament fixation with 5.0-mm IS in femurs had the mechanical characteristics that most closely matched those reported in normal canine cranial cruciate ligaments.
Keywordsbiomechanics - cruciate ligament repair techniques - ligaments - canine - interference screw
Matthew D. Barnhart contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Brian W. Bufkin and Alan S. Litsky contributed to acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.
- 1 Johnson JA, Austin C, Breur GJ. Incidence of canine appendicular musculoskeletal disorders in 16 veterinary teaching hospitals from 1980 to 1989. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1994; 7: 56-69
- 2 Prodromos CC, Rogowksi J, Joyce BT. The economics of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. In: Prodromos CC. , ed. The Anterior Cruciate Ligament: Reconstruction and Basic Science. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2008: 79-87
- 3 Vasseur PB. Stifle joint. In: Slatter D. , ed. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Science; 2003: 2090-2133
- 4 Leighton RL. ; American College of Veterinary Surgery. Preferred method of repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: a survey of ACVS diplomates specializing in canine orthopedics. Vet Surg 1999; 28 (03) 194
- 5 Korvick DL, Johnson AL, Schaeffer DJ. Surgeons' preferences in treating cranial cruciate ligament ruptures in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994; 205 (09) 1318-1324
- 6 Lopez MJ, Markel MD, Kalscheur V, Lu Y, Manley PA. Hamstring graft technique for stabilization of canine cranial cruciate ligament deficient stifles. Vet Surg 2003; 32 (04) 390-401
- 7 Robbe R, Johnson DL. Graft fixation alternatives in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Univ Pa Orthop J 2002; 15: 21-27
- 8 Magen HE, Howell SM, Hull ML. Structural properties of six tibial fixation methods for anterior cruciate ligament soft tissue grafts. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27 (01) 35-43
- 9 Brand Jr J, Weiler A, Caborn DN, Brown Jr CH, Johnson DL. Graft fixation in cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (05) 761-774
- 10 Lee JJ, Otarodifard K, Jun BJ, McGarry MH, Hatch III GF, Lee TQ. Is supplementary fixation necessary in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions?. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (02) 360-365
- 11 Barnhart MD, Maritato K, Schankereli K, Wotton H, Naber S. Evaluation of an intra-articular synthetic ligament for treatment of cranial cruciate ligament disease in dogs: a six-month prospective clinical trial. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (06) 491-498
- 12 Hapa O, Barber FA. ACL fixation devices. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2009; 17 (04) 217-223
- 13 Weiler A, Hoffmann RF, Siepe CJ, Kolbeck SF, Südkamp NP. The influence of screw geometry on hamstring tendon interference fit fixation. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (03) 356-359
- 14 Wingfield C, Amis AA, Stead AC, Law HT. Comparison of the biomechanical properties of rottweiler and racing greyhound cranial cruciate ligaments. J Small Anim Pract 2000; 41 (07) 303-307
- 15 Patterson RH, Smith GK, Gregor TP, Newton CD. Biomechanical stability of four cranial cruciate ligament repair techniques in the dog. Vet Surg 1991; 20 (02) 85-90
- 16 Kock HJ, Stürmer KM, Letsch R, Schmit-Neuerburg KP. Interface and biocompatibility of polyethylene terephthalate knee ligament prostheses. A histological and ultrastructural device retrieval analysis in failed synthetic implants used for surgical repair of anterior cruciate ligaments. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1994; 114 (01) 1-7