AJSM signin
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First published on December 14, 2006, doi:10.1177/0363546506294677
This version was published on March 1, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/3/404    most recent
0363546506294677v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eggers, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eggers, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Petersen, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Injury
Right arrow Biomechanics
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 35:404-410 (2007)
© 2007 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Fixation Methods for Tibial Eminence Fractures

Anne Kathleen Eggers, MD, Christoph Becker, MD, Andre Weimann, MD, Mirco Herbort, Thore Zantop, MD, Michael J. Raschke, MD and Wolf Petersen, MD*

From the Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, Wilhelms University Münster, Münster, Germany

* Address correspondence to Wolf Petersen, MD, Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, Wilhelms University Münster, Waldeyerstr. 1, D-48149 Münster, Germany.

Background: Tibial eminence fractures have become more common, but the best method of fixing these fractures arthroscopically has not been elucidated.

Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the stability of different fixation methods for tibial eminence fractures.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: The authors evaluated the initial fixation strength of 4 different fixation techniques for tibial eminence fractures (2 screws, 1 screw, suture fixation with 1 mm Ethibond, and suture fixation with No. 5 FiberWire) using single cycle and cyclic loading tests. The tests were performed by loading the knee with an anterior tibial shear force.

Results: Suture cerclage with the FiberWire showed significantly higher maximum load (599.6 N) and stiffness (36.99 N/mm) than all other fixation methods tested. The lowest maximum load in the single cycle loading test was observed in the group with 2 screws (1 screw, 371.2 N; 2 screws, 249.8 N). The lowest stiffness was found in the Ethibond group (14.5 N/mm). After 1000 cycles of loading, the maximum load of the FiberWire fixation was significantly higher than the maximum load of the Ethibond fixation (399.4 N), the fixation with 1 screw (354.2 N), and the fixation with 2 screws (301.5 N).

Conclusion: These biomechanical data suggest that under cyclic loading conditions, suture fixation of tibial eminence fractures provides more fixation strength than screw fixation.

Clinical Relevance: A second screw has no positive effect on the biomechanical characteristics of screw fixation.

Key Words: anterior cruciate ligament • knee • fracture • biomechanics






HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.