Biomechanical analysis of a double fixation method for tendon graft in porcine tibia – using an interference screw plus staple

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to compare the mechanical behavior of interference screw tibial fixation vs. screw-plus-staple tibial fixation in an animal model.MethodsThirty-six pieces of swine knee specimens were selected and divided into two groups: Group 1, tibial fixation with interference screw (n = 17), and Group 2, fixation with interference screw and staple (n = 19). The models were submitted to a single cycle of tension testing. The following variables were measured: graft cross-sectional area, failure point on 10 mm (F10), yield load (Fy), and stiffness.ResultsThe mean values of graft cross-sectional area, F10, Fy, and stiffness did not present significant differences between the groups.ConclusionThe addition of a second staple-type ligament fixation device, complementing the interference screw, did not increase the mechanical safety of the system.

The effect of additional staple in the tibial fixation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study in sheep tibia

“…In the animal model, Bauer et al [16] did not show significant differences in the samples using interference screw and staple compared with fixation made with an interference screw alone. It might be depending on the samples used, because the swine knee, which used in Bauer et al's [16], has a stronger cancellous bone compared to the lamb, which is used in the present study.…”

“…In the animal model, Bauer et al [16] did not show significant differences in the samples using interference screw and staple compared with fixation made with an interference screw alone. It might be depending on the samples used, because the swine knee, which used in Bauer et al's [16], has a stronger cancellous bone compared to the lamb, which is used in the present study. In their study on the knees of 15 pigs, Lee et al [2] examined the difference among using bioabsorbable screws only, bioabsorbable screws with staple use and bioabsorbable screws with Push-lock screws.…”

Stand-Alone Tibial Interference Screw Fixation and Tibial Interference Screw Plus Tibial Staple Fixation Produce Comparable Outcomes After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hamstring Autografts

“… 14 , 15 Bauer et al. 16 conducted a biomechanical study on porcine tibia, comparing the 2 fixation methods (interference screw alone vs interference screw plus staple). They analyzed the cross-sectional area, 10-mm failure points, and stiffness of 36 porcine knees divided into 2 groups, and found no significant differences between the groups.…”

“…However, these benefits need to be weighed against potential negative outcomes such as symptomatic hardware, kneeling pain, and the need for secondary surgical treatment to remove the staple. 10 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 …”

Cross‐Sectional Area Measurement Techniques of Soft Tissue: A Literature Review

“…In this way, accurate CSA and morphological information including concavities of soft tissue can be accessed with no damage to the soft tissue. According to molding materials, molding techniques can be divided into the silicone rubber/PMMA molding technique 26,27,81,82 and the alginate molding technique 36,37,[83][84][85]106 , examples of which are shown in Fig. 8.…”