Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 21, Issue 6 , Pages 703-706, June 2005

Central Versus Peripheral Tibial Screw Placement in Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: In Vitro Biomechanics

  • David A. Hayes, M.B.B.S. (QLD)

      Affiliations

    • Brisbane Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to David Hayes, M.B.B.S. (QLD), Brisbane Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Centre, Level 5, Arnold Janssen Centre, Brisbane Private Hospital 259 Wickham Tce, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia.
  • ,
  • Mark C. Watts, M.Phil.

      Affiliations

    • Brisbane Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
    • School of Engineering Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
  • ,
  • Gregory A. Tevelen, Ad.Eng.

      Affiliations

    • School of Engineering Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
  • ,
  • Ross W. Crawford, D.Phil. (Oxon)

      Affiliations

    • School of Engineering Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Purpose: To determine whether a cone-shaped interference screw positioned centrally during tibial fixation in hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction was equal to or better than a peripheral position in terms of stiffness, yield load, ultimate load, and mode of failure. Type of Study: Randomized matched-pair biomechanical pullout study. Methods: One of each of 7 matched pairs of human cadaveric tendon in porcine tibia with titanium cone-shaped screws were randomly allocated to either the peripheral or central group. Bone tunnels were drilled 45° to the long axis of the tibia, akin to standard ACL reconstruction. Tunnel diameter was matched to tendon diameter and a screw 1 mm larger than tunnel diameter was inserted. A Universal Materials Testing Machine (Hounsfield Testing Equipment, Horsham, PA) was used to pull in the line of the tendon. Tendons were inspected after construct disassembly. Results: The central screw configuration showed significantly higher stiffness (P = .0085), yield load (P = .0135), and ultimate load (P = .0075). The mode of failure in the peripheral screw position was slippage at the screw-tendon interface in all cases. In the central group, 87.5% of cases had a breakage in the tendon and 12.5% had slippage at the tendon-bone interface. Conclusions: Central interference screw fixation of soft-tissue ACL reconstruction offers superior fixation strength and stiffness in single pullout mode when compared with peripheral interference screw fixation. Failure in the central group was mostly by tendon breakage, suggesting that a larger difference may be exhibited by the central over the peripheral fixation than demonstrated in this study. Clinical Relevance: Central interference screw fixation compared with peripheral fixation may allow greater confidence in early rehabilitation and reduced clinical failure rates in the long term.

Key Words:  ACL reconstruction , Tibial fixation , Peripheral fixation , Central fixation

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported in part by Stryker Endoscopy, San Jose, California, U.S.A.

PII: S0749-8063(05)00312-9

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2005.03.004

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 21, Issue 6 , Pages 703-706, June 2005