PURPOSE: To determine whether there are differences between adjustable-length loop and fixed-length loop devices in terms of the amount of displacement, temporal pattern of displacement, and ultimate failure load when tested using 4,500 cycles of sinusoidal loading with high loads (100-400 N). METHODS: Two cortical suspension devices with a fixed- or adjustable-length loop were tested. For our comparisons, a 20-mm fixed-length loop device and a fixed-length loop device with the same loop length were used. Comparisons between the devices used both a device-only model (DOM) and a device-bone-soft-tissue graft construct model (CM). RESULTS: In the DOM, the adjustable-length loop device showed weaker mechanical properties. Mean cumulative peak displacement was 1.91 mm for the adjustable-length loop device and 0.74 mm for the fixed-length loop device (P = .001). The displacement of the adjustable-length loop device increased between 1,000 and 4,500 cycles; in contrast, that of the fixed-length loop device reached a plateau. However, there was never displacement greater than 3 mm. In addition, the adjustable-length loop device showed a weaker ultimate failure load (925 N vs 1,410 N, P = .001). In the CM, the difference in cumulative peak displacement between the 2 groups decreased and did not reach statistical significance. The displacement of both devices showed a similar pattern. In addition, there was no difference in ultimate failure load between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in terms of total displacement, temporal pattern of displacement, and ultimate failure load between the 2 devices in the CM, which is the more clinically relevant model. Furthermore, even in the DOM, the difference in total displacement was small and did not reach a clinically meaningful level. Therefore, both devices can be used effectively during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with soft-tissue graft. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both femoral cortical suspension devices with adjustable- and fixed-length loops can be used with similar mechanical properties during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: