Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32(02): 112-116
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676460
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Biomechanical Comparison of Four Methods of Fixation of a Polymeric Cranial Cruciate Ligament in the Canine Femur and Tibia

Matthew D. Barnhart
1   MedVet Medical and Cancer Centers, Worthington, Ohio, United States
,
Brian W. Bufkin
2   MedVet Medical and Cancer Centers, Mobile, Alabama, United States
,
Alan S. Litsky
3   Department of Orthopaedics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
4   Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by the Securos Orthopedic Institute, Securos Surgical, Fiskdale MA.
Further Information

Publication History

23 August 2018

09 October 2018

Publication Date:
13 February 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Keywords

biomechanics - cruciate ligament repair techniques - ligaments - canine - interference screw

Author Contribution

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.


 

  • References

  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vasseur PB. Stifle joint. In: Slatter D. , ed. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Science; 2003: 2090-2133
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Robbe R, Johnson DL. Graft fixation alternatives in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Univ Pa Orthop J 2002; 15: 21-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hapa O, Barber FA. ACL fixation devices. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2009; 17 (04) 217-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar