Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Oct;25(10):1101-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.05.011.

Comparison of different sizes of bioabsorbable interference screws for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bioabsorbable bead augmentation in a porcine model

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of different sizes of bioabsorbable interference screws for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bioabsorbable bead augmentation in a porcine model

Pei-Hung Shen et al. Arthroscopy. 2009 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the initial fixation strength of tendon grafts between different sizes of bioabsorbable interference screws (BioScrew; Linvatec, Largo, FL) with bioabsorbable bead (EndoPearl; Linvatec) augmentation through biomechanical analysis of a porcine femoral bone model.

Methods: Forty pairs of porcine femurs and porcine flexor digitorum profundus tendons were divided into control and study groups. In the control group 8 x 30-mm BioScrews alone (n = 10) were inserted, whereas different sizes of BioScrews, measuring 7 x 30 mm (n = 10), 8 x 30 mm (n = 10), and 9 x 30 mm (n = 10), with 8-mm EndoPearl augmentation were inserted individually for fixation of tendon grafts in the study groups. All specimens were cyclically loaded with axial forces between 50 and 250 N at 1 Hz for 3,000 cycles and then incrementally loaded to failure at a rate of 150 mm/min.

Results: BioScrews with EndoPearl augmentation had a significantly higher failure load than BioScrews alone (8-mm BioScrew alone v 8-mm BioScrew and EndoPearl, P < .05). There were no significant differences in the ultimate failure load (8 mm v 7 mm and 9 mm, P = .201 and P = .871, respectively), stiffness (8 mm v 7 mm and 9 mm, P = .789 and P = .823, respectively), displacement (8 mm v 7 mm and 9 mm, P = .695 and P = .781, respectively), and bone mineral density (P = .728 for all comparisons) except insertion torque (8 mm v 7 mm and 9 mm, P = .045 and P = .518, respectively) between study groups. Less tendon laceration by the screw thread was noted in the group in which smaller-sized BioScrews were used.

Conclusions: When EndoPearl augmentation was used, smaller-sized BioScrews (BioScrew size 1 mm smaller than bone tunnel) offered equivalent graft fixation strength to BioScrews of similar or larger sizes.

Clinical relevance: Smaller-sized BioScrews can be chosen if EndoPearl augmentation has been used, and EndoPearl augmentation may reduce the risk of tendon rupture while BioScrews are inserted.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources