Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 3582–3592 | Cite as

Implant preloading in extension reduces spring length change in dynamic intraligamentary stabilization: a biomechanical study on passive kinematics of the knee

  • Janosch HäberliEmail author
  • Benjamin Voumard
  • Clemens Kösters
  • Daniel Delfosse
  • Philipp Henle
  • Stefan Eggli
  • Philippe Zysset
Knee
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) is a primary repair technique for acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. For internal bracing of the sutured ACL, a metal spring with 8 mm maximum length change is preloaded with 60–80 N and fixed to a high-strength polyethylene braid. The bulky tibial hardware results in bone loss and may cause local discomfort with the necessity of hardware removal. The technique has been previously investigated biomechanically; however, the amount of spring shortening during movement of the knee joint is unknown. Spring shortening is a crucial measure, because it defines the necessary dimensions of the spring and, therefore, the overall size of the implant.

Methods

Seven Thiel-fixated human cadaveric knee joints were subjected to passive range of motion (flexion/extension, internal/external rotation in 90° flexion, and varus/valgus stress in 0° and 20° flexion) and stability tests (Lachman/KT-1000 testing in 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, and 90° flexion) in the ACL-intact, ACL-transected, and DIS-repaired state. Kinematic data of femur, tibia, and implant spring were recorded with an optical measurement system (Optotrak) and the positions of the bone tunnels were assessed by computed tomography. Length change of bone tunnel distance as a surrogate for spring shortening was then computed from kinematic data. Tunnel positioning in a circular zone with r = 5 mm was simulated to account for surgical precision and its influence on length change was assessed.

Results

Over all range of motion and stability tests, spring shortening was highest (5.0 ± 0.2 mm) during varus stress in 0° knee flexion. During flexion/extension, spring shortening was always highest in full extension (3.8 ± 0.3 mm) for all specimens and all simulations of bone tunnels. Tunnel distance shortening was highest (0.15 mm/°) for posterior femoral and posterior tibial tunnel positioning and lowest (0.03 mm/°) for anterior femoral and anterior tibial tunnel positioning.

Conclusion

During passive flexion/extension, the highest spring shortening was consistently measured in full extension with a continuous decrease towards flexion. If preloading of the spring is performed in extension, the spring can be downsized to incorporate a maximum length change of 5 mm resulting in a smaller implant with less bone sacrifice and, therefore, improved conditions in case of revision surgery.

Keywords

ACL repair Anterior tibial translation Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization Knee kinematics 

Abbreviations

ACL

Anterior cruciate ligament

ATT

Anterior tibial translation

CT

Computed tomography

DIS

Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization

ROM

Range of motion

Notes

Acknowledgements

Alexander Bürki is acknowledged for his excellent support during biomechanical testing.

Author contributions

JH co-designed the study, composed the manuscript concept, and wrote the manuscript. BV conducted the biomechanical tests, performed all statistical analyses, and edited the complete manuscript. CK and JH operated all cases and helped editing the final draft version of the manuscript. DD supervised the study and helped editing the final draft version of the manuscript. PhZ co-designed the study, supervised it, and edited the complete manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded and implants were provided by Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

DD is a member of Mathys company. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and Informed consent

Four Thiel-fixated entire and intact human cadaveric bodies were obtained with informed consent from the Institute of Anatomy of the University of Bern.

Supplementary material

167_2018_5002_MOESM1_ESM.png (4.2 mb)
Additional file 1: Records of knee joint angles during all ROM tests (flexion/extension, internal/external rotation in 90° and varus/valgus in 0° and 20°). The two curves represent the two different examiners. The red curve represents JH and the blue curve CK (PNG 4250 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Balasch H, Schiller M, Friebel H, Hoffmann F (1999) Evaluation of anterior knee joint instability with the Rolimeter A test in comparison with manual assessment and measuring with the KT-1000 arthrometer. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batty LM, Norsworthy CJ, Lash NJ, Wasiak J, Richmond AK, Feller JA (2015) Synthetic devices for reconstructive surgery of the cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 31:957–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernard M, Hertel P, Hornung H, Cierpinski T (1997) Femoral insertion of the ACL. Radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg 10:14–21 (discussion 21–12) PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chambat P, Guier C, Sonnery-Cottet B, Fayard J-M, Thaunat M (2013) The evolution of ACL reconstruction over the last fifty years. Int Orthop 37:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Driscoll MD, Isabell GP, Conditt MA, Ismaily SK, Jupiter DC, Noble PC et al (2012) Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel locations in anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 28:1481–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ebersole GM, Eckerle P, Farrow LD, Cutuk A, Bledsoe G, Kaar S (2015) Anterior cruciate ligament graft isometry is affected by the orientation of the femoral tunnel. J Knee Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1554926 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engebretsen L, Benum P, Fasting O, Mølster A, Strand T (1990) A prospective, randomized study of three surgical techniques for treatment of acute ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 18:585–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haberli J, Henle P, Acklin YP, Zderic I, Gueorguiev B (2016) Knee joint kinematics with dynamic augmentation of primary anterior cruciate ligament repair—a biomechanical study. J Exp Orthop 3:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henle P, Roder C, Perler G, Heitkemper S, Eggli S (2015) Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) for treatment of acute anterior cruciate ligament ruptures: case series experience of the first three years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herbort M, Lenschow S, Fu FH, Petersen W, Zantop T (2010) ACL mismatch reconstructions: influence of different tunnel placement strategies in single-bundle ACL reconstructions on the knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1551–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoogeslag RAG, Brouwer RW, Huis In ‘t Veld R, Stephen JM, Amis AA (eds) (2018) Dynamic augmentation restores anterior tibial translation in ACL suture repair: a biomechanical comparison of non-, static and dynamic augmentation techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4848-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inderhaug E, Stephen JM, Williams A, Amis AA (2017) Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral procedures combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 45:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim HY, Seo YJ, Kim HJ, Nguyenn T, Shetty NS, Yoo YS (2011) Tension changes within the bundles of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at different knee flexion angles: a study using a 3-dimensional finite element model. Arthroscopy 27:1400–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim Y, Lee BH, Mekuria K, Cho H, Park S, Wang JH et al (2017) Registration accuracy enhancement of a surgical navigation system for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a phantom and cadaveric study. Knee 24:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krismer AM, Gousopoulos L, Kohl S, Ateschrang A, Kohlhof H, Ahmad SS (2017) Factors influencing the success of anterior cruciate ligament repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4445-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee JS, Kim TH, Kang SY, Lee SH, Jung YB, Koo S et al (2012) How isometric are the anatomic femoral tunnel and the anterior tibial tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Arthroscopy 28:1504–1512 (1512 e1501–1502) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lubowitz JH (2014) Anatomic ACL reconstruction produces greater graft length change during knee range-of-motion than transtibial technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1190–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Machotka Z, Scarborough I, Duncan W, Kumar S, Perraton L (2010) Anterior cruciate ligament repair with LARS (ligament advanced reinforcement system): a systematic review. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 2:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maletius W, Gillquist J (1997) Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a Dacron prosthesis: the frequency of osteoarthritis after seven to eleven years. Am J Sports Med 25:288–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray MM, Spindler KP, Ballard P, Welch TP, Zurakowski D, Nanney LB (2007) Enhanced histologic repair in a central wound in the anterior cruciate ligament with a collagen-platelet-rich plasma scaffold. J Orthop Res 25:1007–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Musahl V, Plakseychuk A, VanScyoc A, Sasaki T, Debski RE, Mcmahon PJ et al (2005) Varying femoral tunnels between the anatomical footprint and isometric positions: effect on kinematics of the anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee. Am J Sports Med 33:712–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robinson J, Stanford FC, Kendoff D, Stuber V, Pearle AD (2009) Replication of the range of native anterior cruciate ligament fiber length change behavior achieved by different grafts: measurement using computer-assisted navigation. Am J Sports Med 37:1406–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schliemann B, Lenschow S, Domnick C, Herbort M, Haberli J, Schulze M et al. (2015) Knee joint kinematics after dynamic intraligamentary stabilization: cadaveric study on a novel anterior cruciate ligament repair technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3735-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steadman J, Matheny L, Briggs K, Rodkey W, Carreira D (2012) Outcomes following healing response in older, active patients: a primary anterior cruciate ligament repair technique. J Knee Surg 25:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoo YS, Jeong WS, Shetty NS, Ingham SJ, Smolinski P, Fu F (2010) Changes in ACL length at different knee flexion angles: an in vivo biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:292–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sonnenhof Orthopaedic CentreBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Surgical Technology and BiomechanicsBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.University Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany
  4. 4.Mathys Ltd.BettlachSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations