Fereidoon Mojtahed Jaberi, MD; Hooman Abbasi, MD; Nasrin Saki; Amir Lotfazar; Ahmad Ensafdaran, MD; Soraya Saki; Mehrad Mojtahed Jaberi
Abstract
Background: This study presents a modification of tibial inlay technique in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction and evaluates the structural properties of tibial side fixation of the graft, comparing tibial inlay technique and a new modification, that is interference screw fixation of tibial ...
Read More
Background: This study presents a modification of tibial inlay technique in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction and evaluates the structural properties of tibial side fixation of the graft, comparing tibial inlay technique and a new modification, that is interference screw fixation of tibial side of the graft in suggested supine position which is more applicable, with less potential intraoperative neurovascular complications.Methods: Forty fresh calf knees that were prepared from 20 healthy 3 years old calves which were between 200 and 220 kg were the subject of this study. The tibias were separately used simulating tibial side PCL reconstruction with tibial tuberosity-patellar tendon–patellar bone graft. Tibial side of the graft was fixed using two cancellous screws in 20 tibiae and with interference screw in obliquely oriented canal in another 20 tibiae. Load-to-failure test was carried out on ten samples from each group. The remaining samples were used for cycling loading. Structural properties of each group were compared.Results: No significant differences were observed between two methods at load-to-failure test but mean elongation at 1,000 cycles of new modification was significantly lower than tibial inlay technique.Conclusion: In this biomechanical experimental study there found no significant differences between two methods at load-to-failure tests. Maximum load (N) was different between the tibial inlay method and the modified method but the difference was not statistically significant. Yield load and linear stiffness and deformation at the yield point were also not different between the two methods. The only important difference between the two methods was at cyclic loading test where the mean elongation at 1,000 cycles of the modified technique group was significantly lower than tibial inlay technique (p < /em>= .01).
