Biomechanical Comparison of Epiphyseal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Fixation Using a Cortical Button Construct Versus an Interference Screw and Sheath Construct in Skeletally Immature Cadaveric Specimens.

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures have become increasingly common in pediatric and adolescent athletes. While multiple methods exist, all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction is a popular technique in the skeletally immature patient. Given the high rate of reruptures in this population and the increasing number of commercially available fixation devices, biomechanical testing is crucial to understand the performance of these devices in pediatric epiphyseal bone. To our knowledge, there has not been a biomechanical analysis of ACL fixation devices in skeletally immature bone.

PURPOSE: To compare cortically based button fixation with interference screw and sheath fixation in skeletally immature femoral epiphyseal cadaveric bone. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in peak load to failure, stiffness, or cyclic displacement between these 2 fixation constructs.

STUDY

DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Fresh-frozen matched-pair knees from 3 pediatric cadaveric specimens were obtained. A synthetic graft was fixed in an all-epiphyseal femoral tunnel. Both the lateral and medial condyles were utilized to increase the sample size. Specimens were randomized and assigned to receive either an interference screw and sheath construct designed for pediatric patients or an adjustable loop cortical button. Biomechanical testing was performed to obtain ultimate load to failure, stiffness, total displacement after 500 cycles, and the failure mode for each condyle.

RESULTS

Each medial and lateral condyle in 3 pairs of skeletally immature cadaveric knees (ages 7, 9, and 11 years) was utilized for testing. One specimen was excluded after it failed by having a transphyseal fracture. The median peak load to failure was 769.80 N (interquartile range [IQR], 628.50-930.41 N) for the screw and sheath group and 862.80 N (IQR, 692.34-872.65 N) for the button group (P = .893). The median displacement after 500 cycles for the screw and sheath group was 0.65 mm (IQR, 0.47-1.03 mm) and 1.13 mm (IQR, 0.96-1.25 mm) for the button group (P = .08). The median stiffness of the screw and sheath group was significantly higher than that of the button group (31.47 N/mm [IQR, 26.40-43.00 N/mm] vs 25.22 N/mm [IQR, 21.18-27.07 N/mm], respectively) (P = .043).

CONCLUSION

When comparing femoral fixation with a screw and sheath construct developed for pediatric patients to an adjustable loop cortical button in skeletally immature bone, our results showed that fixation did not significantly differ with respect to cyclic displacement or peak load to failure. While the screw and sheath construct was significantly stiffer, its effect on clinical outcomes is not yet known.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With regard to femoral fixation, there is no significant biomechanical difference between the use of cortically based button fixation or interference screw and sheath fixation in pediatric epiphyseal cadaveric bone.