Background: Because there is an insufficient supply of young human knees, an alternative is needed for evaluating anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. The authors determined whether an elderly human tibia reinforced with foam is a better substitute for a young human tibia than a porcine tibia in this study of the tibial fixation of a soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament graft using 3 devices.
Hypothesis: A foam-reinforced elderly human tibia more closely approximates the performance of a young human tibia than a porcine tibia.
Study Design: Biomechanical study.
Methods: Failure mode, stiffness, yield, and slippage were determined for a double-looped tendon graft fixed with either an interference screw, WasherLoc, or tandem washers in young human tibiae, foam-reinforced tibiae from elderly humans, and porcine tibiae.
Results: The stiffness and yield of interference screw and WasherLoc fixation in foam-reinforced tibiae more closely approximate those in young human tibiae than in porcine tibiae. Slippage of all combinations of tibiae and fixation devices was similar.
Conclusions: A foam-reinforced human tibia more closely approximates the performance of a young human tibia than that of a porcine tibia in this study.
Clinical Relevance: Fixation devices should be tested in foam-reinforced tibiae from elderly humans rather than tibiae from large farm animals when the supply of young human knees is insufficient.
1. Abate JA, Fadale PD, Hulstyn MJ, et al. Initial fixation strength of polylactic acid interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy.1998;14:278-284.
2.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Specification for Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Use as a Standard Material for Testing Orthopaedic Devices and Instruments: F 1839-97.West Conshohcken, Pa: ASTM International; 1998.
3.
3. Arnoczky SP. Animal Models for Knee Ligament Research.New York, NY: Raven Press; 1990:401-417.
4.
4. Arnold JS, Bartley MH, Tont SA, et al. Skeletal changes in aging and disease. Clin Orthop.1966;49:17-36.
5.
5. Black KP, Saunders MM, Stube KC, et al. erference fit screw length on tibial tunnel fixation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Med.2000;28:846-846.
6.
6. Brand JC Jr, Steenlage E, et al. crew fixation strength of a quadrupled hamstring tendon graft is directly related to bone mineral density and insertion torque.Med.2000;28705-710.
7.
7. Carter DR, Hayes WC. The Compressive behavior of bone as a twophase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1977;59:954-962.
8.
8. Costi JJ, Kelly AJ, Heern TC, et al. Comparison of torsional strengths of bioabsorbable screws for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med.2001;29:575-580.
9.
9. Ding M, Dalstra M, Danielsen CC, et al. Age variations in the properties of human tibial trabecular bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1997;79:995-1002.
10.
10. Donahue TL, Gregersen C, Hull ML, et al.Comparison of viscoelastic, structural, and material properties of double-looped anterior cruciate ligament grafts made from bovine digital extensor and human hamstring tendons. J Biomech Eng.2001;123:162-169.
11.
11. Firoozbakhsh KK, Moneim MS, DeCoster TA. Pullout strength of power- and hand-driven staples in synthetic bone: effect of design parameters. J Orthop Trauma.1992;6:43-49.
12.
12. Fuss FK. Anatomy and function of the cruciate ligaments of the domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticaomparison with human cruciates. J Anat.1991;178:11-20.
13.
13. Giurea M, Zorilla P, Amis AA, et al. Comparative pull-out and cyclicloading strength tests of anchorage of hamstring tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med.1999;27:621-625.
14.
14. Hamner DL, Brown CH Jr, Steiner ME, et al. Hamstring tendon grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: biomechanical evaluation of the use of multiple strands and tensioning techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1999;81:549-557.
15.
15. Hulstyn M, Fadale PD, Abate J, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of interference screw fixation in a bovine patellar bone-tendon-bone autograft complex for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy.1993;9:417-424.
16.
16. Jackson DW, Grood ES, Arnoczky SP, et al. Freeze dried anterior cruciate ligament allografts: preliminary studies in a goat model. Am J Sports Med.1987;15:295-303.
17.
17. Keaveny TM, Wachtel EF, Ford CM, et al. Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus. J Biomech.1994;27:1137-1146.
18.
18. Liu SH, Kabo JM, Osti L. Biomechanics of two types of bone-tendonbone graft for ACL reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1995;77:232-235.
19.
19. Magen HE, Howell SM, Hull ML. Structural properties of six tibial fixation methods for anterior cruciate ligament soft tissue grafts. Am J Sports Med.1999;27:35-43.
20.
20. Matthews LS, Lawrence SJ, Yahiro MA, et al. Fixation strengths of patellar tendon–bone grafts. Arthroscopy.1993;9:76-81.
21.
21. Nafei A, Danielsen CC, Linde F, et al. Properties of growing trabecular ovine bone, part 1: mechanical and physical properties. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2000;82:910-920.
22.
22. Nagarkatti DG, McKeon BP, Donahue BS, et al. Mechanical evaluation of a soft tissue interference screw in free tendon anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation. Am J Sports Med.2001;29:67-71.
23.
23. Pena F, Grontvedt T, Brown GA, et al. Comparison of failure strength between metallic and absorbable interference screws: influence of insertion torque, tunnel-bone block gap, bone mineral density, and interference. Am J Sports Med.1996;24:329-334.
24.
24. Pierz K, Baltz M, Fulkerson J. The effect of Kurosaka screw divergence on the holding strength of bone-tendon-bone grafts. Am J Sports Med.1995;23:332-335.
25.
25. Rice JC, Cowin SC, Bowman JA. On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech.1988;21:155-168.
26.
26. Rohl L, Larsen E, Linde F, et al. Tensile and compressive properties of cancellous bone. J Biomech.1991;24:1143-1149.
27.
27. Ruff CB, Hayes WC. Bone-mineral content in the lower limb: relationship to cross-sectional geometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1984;66:1024-1031.
28.
28. Rupp S, Seil R, Schneider A, et al. Ligament graft initial fixation strength using biodegradable interference screws. J Biomed Mater Res.1999;48:70-74.
29.
29. Simonian PT, Sussmann PS, Baldini TH, et al. Interference screw position and hamstring graft location for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy.1998;14:459-464.
30.
30. Singhatat W, Lawhorn KW, Howell SM, et al. How four weeks of implantation affect the strength and stiffness of a tendon graft in a bone tunnel: a study of two fixation devices in an extraarticular model in ovine. Am J Sports Med.2002;30:506-513.
31.
31. Szivek JA, Thompson JD, Benjamin JB. Characterization of three formulations of a synthetic foam as models for a range of human cancellous bone types. J Appl Biomater.1995;6:125-128.
32.
32. To JT, Howell SM, Hull ML. Contributions of femoral fixation methods to the stiffness of anterior cruciate ligament replacements at implantation. Arthroscopy.1999;15:379-387.
33.
33. Weiler A, Hoffmann RF, Stahelin AC, et al. Biodegradable implants in sports medicine: the biological base. Arthroscopy.2000;16:305-321.
34.
34. Weiler A, Windhagen HJ, Raschke MJ, et al. Biodegradable interference screw fixation exhibits pull-out force and stiffness similar to titanium screws. Am J Sports Med.1998;26:119-126.
35.
35. Yamada K, Healey R, Amiel D, et al. Subchondral bone of the human knee joint in aging and osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage.2002;10:360-369.
