Biomechanical Comparison of Adjustable-Loop Femoral Cortical Suspension Devices for Soft Tissue ACL Reconstruction
| dc.contributor.author | Chapman, G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hannah, J. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Vij, N. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Liu, J.N. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Morrison, M.J. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Amin, N. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-14T00:23:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-14T00:23:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023-02-16 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Chapman G, Hannah J, Vij N, Liu JN, Morrison MJ, Amin N. Biomechanical Comparison of Adjustable-Loop Femoral Cortical Suspension Devices for Soft Tissue ACL Reconstruction. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;11(2). doi:10.1177/23259671221146788 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2325-9671 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/23259671221146788 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/674299 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Several new adjustable-loop devices (ALDs) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have not been tested in vitro. Purpose: To compare the biomechanical performances of 5 ALDs under a high cyclic load and forces representative of the return-to-play conditions seen in the recovering athlete. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 10 devices for each of 5 chosen ALDs (UltraButton [Smith & Nephew], RigidLoop [DePuy Mitek], ProCinch [Stryker], TightRope [Arthrex], and ToggleLoc [Biomet]) were tested in a device-only model. The devices were secured to a servohydraulic test machine and preconditioned from 10 to 75 N at a rate of 0.5 Hz for 20 cycles. They were then subjected to high cyclic forces (100-500 N for 4000 cycles) and subsequently pulled to failure at 50 mm/min. The preconditioning displacement, permanent deformation, cumulative peak displacement, stiffness coefficient, and load to failure data were collected. Results: The UltraButton displayed the greatest preconditioning displacement (0.22 ± 0.20 mm), followed by the RigidLoop (0.11 ± 0.03 mm), ProCinch (0.07 ± 0.04 mm), TightRope (0.07 ± 0.02 mm), and ToggleLoc (0.02 ± 0.03 mm). The TightRope displayed the greatest permanent deformation (3.19 ± 1.03 mm) followed by the UltraButton (2.14 ± 0.92 mm), ToggleLoc (2.02 ± 1.09 mm), RigidLoop (1.67 ± 0.1 mm), and ProCinch (1.38 ± 0.18 mm). The TightRope displayed the greatest cumulative peak displacement (3.69 ± 1.03 mm) followed by the UltraButton (2.46 ± 0.92 mm), ToggleLoc (2.37 ± 1.08 mm), RigidLoop (2.01 ± 0.1 mm), and ProCinch (1.75 ± 0.19 mm). The UltraButton displayed the largest stiffness coefficient (1347.22 ± 136.33 N/mm) followed by the RigidLoop (1325.4 ± 116.37 N/mm), ToggleLoc (1216.62 ± 131.32 N/mm), ProCinch (1155.56 ± 88.04), and TightRope (848.48 ± 31.94). The ToggleLoc displayed the largest load to failure (1874.42 ± 101.08 N) followed by the RigidLoop (1614.12 ± 129.11 N), UltraButton (1391.69 ± 142.04 N), ProCinch (1384.85 ± 58.62 N), and TightRope (991.8 ± 51.1 N.) Conclusion: The 5 ALDs exhibited different biomechanical properties. None of them had peak cumulative displacements for which the confidence interval lay above 3 mm, thus no single device was determined to have a higher rate of clinical failure compared with the others. Clinical Relevance: ALD choice may affect biomechanics after ACLR. © The Author(s) 2023. | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | SAGE Publications Ltd | |
| dc.rights | © The Author(s) 2023. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). | |
| dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | |
| dc.subject | ACL | |
| dc.subject | adjustable loop device | |
| dc.subject | cortical button | |
| dc.subject | ligament reconstruction | |
| dc.subject | sports medicine | |
| dc.title | Biomechanical Comparison of Adjustable-Loop Femoral Cortical Suspension Devices for Soft Tissue ACL Reconstruction | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dc.type | text | |
| dc.contributor.department | College of Medicine, University of Arizona | |
| dc.identifier.journal | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine | |
| dc.description.note | Open access journal | |
| dc.description.collectioninformation | This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu. | |
| dc.eprint.version | Final Published Version | |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine | |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2024-08-14T00:23:13Z |

