HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 32/3/635    most recent 0363546503261714v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (24) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ahmad, C. S. Articles by Levine, W. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ahmad, C. S. Articles by Levine, W. N. Related Collections Reconstruction Biomechanics Graft fixation Knee

Mechanical Properties of Soft Tissue Femoral Fixation Devices for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

From the Center for Shoulder, Elbow, and Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University, New York, New York

^* Address correspondence to Christopher S. Ahmad, Columbia University, New York Orthopaedic Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York, NY 10032.

Purpose: To evaluate femoral soft tissue fixation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Hypothesis: Femoral fixation devices have different ultimate strengths and slippage under cyclic loading.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: Thirty-three porcine femora were used to study interference screw (9), Endobutton (8), Rigidfix cross-pin (8), and Bio-Transfix cross-pin (8) fixation methods. Fixation slippage was evaluated under cyclical load from 50 N to 250 N using a materials testing machine. Ultimate load was determined with a single load to failure.

Results: Total graft slippage was greater (P < .001) for the Rigidfix (6.02 ± 2.12 mm) and the interference screw (5.44 ± 3.25 mm) compared to the Endobutton (1.75 ± 0.97 mm) and the Bio-Transfix (1.14 ± 0.53 mm). All techniques showed the greatest slippage during the first 100 cycles (Rigidfix 84%, Endobutton 70%, interference screw 56%, and Bio-Transfix 55%). The failure load for the interference screw technique (539 ± 114 N) was lower (P = .0008) than for the other 3 techniques (737 ± 140 N for Rigidfix, 746 ± 119 N for Bio-Transfix, and 864 ± 164 N for Endobutton).

Conclusions: The interference screw and the Rigidfix fixation demonstrated inferior fixation biomechanics compared to the Bio-Transfix and the Endobutton techniques.

Key Words: knee • biomechanics • ligament

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. L. Zhang, Y. M. Lewicky, R. Oka, A. Mahar, and R. Pedowitz Biomechanical Analysis of Femoral Tunnel Pull-out Angles for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Bioabsorbable and Metal Interference Screws Am. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2007; 35(4): 637 - 642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Han, Y. H. Kim, J. H. Yoo, S. C. Seong, and T. K. Kim Broken Bioabsorbable Femoral Cross-Pin After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Graft: A Case Report Am. J. Sports Med., November 1, 2005; 33(11): 1742 - 1745. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Williams III, J. Hyman, F. Petrigliano, T. Rozental, and T. L. Wickiewicz Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with a Four-Strand Hamstring Tendon Autograft J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2005; 87(1_suppl_1): 51 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]