2026-06-02T12:27:47Zhttps://riuma.uma.es/rest/oai/requestoai:riuma.uma.es:10630/374572026-02-03T11:05:57Zcom_10630_2254col_10630_37953
RIUMA. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga
author
Espejo-Baena, Alejandro
author
Ezquerro-Juanco, Francisco
author
Pérez-de-la-Blanca-Cobos, Ana María
author
Fernández-Serrano, José Luis
author
Nadal-Martínez, Fernando
author
Montañez Heredia, Elvira
2025-01-30T19:57:35Z
2025-01-30T19:57:35Z
2006
Alejandro Espejo-Baena, Francisco Ezquerro, Ana Pérez de la Blanca, José Serrano-Fernandez, Fernando Nadal, Elvira Montañez-Heredia, Comparison of Initial Mechanical Properties of 4 Hamstring Graft Femoral Fixation Systems Using Nonpermanent Hardware for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An In Vitro Animal Study, Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, Volume 22, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 433-440, ISSN 0749-8063
https://hdl.handle.net/10630/37457
10.1016/j.arthro.2005.09.021
Purpose: To compare the initial mechanical characteristics of 4 systems used to fix tendons to the femur during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Methods: A total of 32 porcine femurs were used to study the following fixation systems: Bioabsorbable interference screw (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI), Bio-Transfix Cross-pin (Arthrex, Naples, FL), Biosteon Cross-pin (Stryker), and a fixation technique based on wrapping the graft around the femoral condyle itself, thus allowing it to be fixed in place without the use of any hardware. The mechanical characteristics of each system were obtained by a preconditioned failure tensile test.
Results: The yield load values (990.9 ± 242.6 N for Bio-Transfix, 905.1 ± 158.8 N for Biosteon Cross-pin, 684.4 119.7 N for the without-hardware system (WHS), and 369.4 ± 120.1 N for the interference screw) revealed significant differences between the techniques that used cross-pins and the other 2 techniques (P < .006) on the one hand, and between the without hardware technique and the interference screw (P < .004) on the other. The stiffness of the 2 cross-pin fixation systems (117.6 ± 22.5 N for Bio-Transfix and 112.6 ± 22.5 N for Biosteon) was greater (P < .01) than those of the other systems (79.4 ± 15.2 N for the WHS and 68.5 ± 13 N for the interference screw).
Conclusions: The initial biomechanical properties of the 2 cross-pin fixation systems proved to be superior to those of the other 2 systems studied. The WHS fixation system exhibited better mechanical properties than its interference screw counterpart.
Clinical Relevance: The better initial mechanical characteristics encountered using the BioTransfix and Biosteon Cross-pin systems indicate that these systems are better equipped to bear the loads generated by aggressive rehabilitation. The WHS fixation system provides an alternative to interference screw fixation.
eng
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Biomecánica
Comparison of Initial Mechanical Properties of 4 Hamstring Graft Femoral Fixation Systems Using Nonpermanent Hardware for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An In Vitro Animal Study
journal article
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
URL
https://riuma.uma.es/bitstreams/ccad3ce5-6667-4d13-b3a5-405935e2624f/download
File
MD5
897b63b36930278e7a1aeb03bee52f6b
194924
application/pdf
Comparison of Initial Mechanical Properties of 4 Hamstring Graft Femoral Fixation Systems.pdf