Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 26, Issue 3 , Pages 351-357, March 2010

Evaluation of a New Femoral Fixation Device in a Simulated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

  • Andrew Speirs, M.A.Sc.

      Affiliations

    • Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • David Simon, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • Peter Lapner, M.D., F.R.C.S.C.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Peter Lapner, M.D., F.R.C.S.C., Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, CCW 1648, Box 502, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada

Received 19 November 2008; accepted 24 August 2009. published online 25 January 2010.

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro biomechanical study was to determine the cyclic elongation and failure properties of a new anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction device and compare the results with several devices that are currently available.

Methods

We performed 10 ACL reconstructions in 4 groups using fresh porcine femurs and doubled lateral extensor of the toes tendons. Manufacturer guidelines were followed for fixation by use of either of 2 cortical suspension devices (XO Button [ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL] and EndoButton CL [Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA]), a bio-interference screw (BioScrew; ConMed Linvatec), or a corticocancellous fixation device (Pinn-ACL; ConMed Linvatec). Reconstructions were subjected to cyclic loading to 150 N for 2,000 cycles, followed by static failure tests.

Results

The two cortical suspension devices performed similarly to one another: the XO Button device had a significantly lower elongation amplitude than the EndoButton (P < .05). There were no significant differences in longer-term creep performance or static strength or stiffness. Compared with an interference screw, the XO Button had significantly less creep and higher failure load (P < .05). The corticocancellous device had the lowest creep and cyclic elongation amplitude and the highest strength and stiffness of the devices tested.

Conclusions

In this in vitro evaluation, reconstructions with the XO Button and EndoButton exhibited very similar biomechanical performance, and our hypothesis was not supported: the XO Button did not limit creep more than the EndoButton.

Clinical Relevance

The results of this preclinical in vitro testing suggest that the new device is expected to provide clinical results similar to those of the EndoButton, a well-established device for ACL reconstruction.

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 by ConMed Linvatec. The authors report no conflict of interest.

PII: S0749-8063(09)00772-5

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.08.016

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 26, Issue 3 , Pages 351-357, March 2010