Mechanical comparison of six loop fixation methods with monofilament nylon leader line

L. E. Peycke; S. C. Kerwin; G. Hosgood; J. B. Metcalf

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1632741

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2002; 15(04): 210-214
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632741

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Mechanical comparison of six loop fixation methods with monofilament nylon leader line

Authors

L. E. Peycke

¹Louisiana State University, School of Veterinary Medicine,Baton Rouge, LA, USA
S. C. Kerwin

²Texas A&M University, College of Veterinary Medicine, College Station, TX, USA
G. Hosgood

¹Louisiana State University, School of Veterinary Medicine,Baton Rouge, LA, USA
J. B. Metcalf

³Louisiana State University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Abstract

Summary

Monofilament nylon leader line (MNL) is a popular prosthetic material used by veterinary surgeons for extra-capsular cranial cruciate ligament repair. Careful examination of MNL fixation methods has been reported, but a comprehensive comparison has not been done. This study evaluated three unpublished novel methods of MNL loop fixation [Harris wire tightener (knotter), Securos^® crimp clamp system, self-locking knot] to traditional methods of MNL loop fixation (clamped square knot, sliding half hitch knot). Loops (27.3 kgt and 36.4 kgt) were distracted at 500 mm/min until failure by breaking or slipping. Ultimate force, elongation and stiffness were used for comparison of loop fixation methods. All of the loops failed by breaking within 3.0 mm of knot or clamp. The Harris knotter had significantly greater elongation than all other loops, except for the self-locking knot. The self-locking knot required the most force to failure; however, it was not superior if the doublestranded configuration was considered. If the mechanical properties of the knot method is considered in light of the subjective handling characteristics, the Securos^® crimp clamp system had equivalent strength measurement for the 27.3 kgt MNL loops and was stronger than traditional methods using the 36.4 kgt MNL. The Securos^® system recommends use of the larger diameter MNL and it allows a surgeon to overcome potential difficult handling characteristics previously encountered with knot formation and security.

Keywords

Ligatures - nylon

Full Text

References

References
1 Anderson 3rd CC, Tomlinson JL, Dalv WR, Carson WL, Payne JT, Wagner-Mann CC. Biomechanical evaluation of a crimp clamp system for loop fixation of monofilament nylon leader material used for stabilization of the canine stifle joint. Vet Sur 1998; 27 (06) 533-9.
2 Arnoczky SP, Marshall JL. The cruciate ligaments of the canine stifle: an anatomical and functional analysis. Am J Vet Res 1977; 38 (11) 1807-14.
3 Butler DL, Hulse DA, Kay MD. et al. Biomechanics of cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction in the dog II. Mechanical properties. Vet Surg 1983; 12 (03) 113-8.
4 Caporn TM, Roe SC. Biomechanical evaluation of the suitability of monofilament nylon fishing and leader line for extra-articular stabilisation of the canine cruciate-deficient stifle. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 09: 126-33.
5 Cheng SL, Smith TJ, Davey JR. A comparison of the strength and stability of six techniques of cerclage wire fixation for fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1993; 07 (03) 221-5.
6 DeAngelis M, Lau RE. A lateral retinacular imbrication technique for the surgical correction of anterior cruciate ligament rupture in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1970; 157 (01) 79-84.
7 Huber DJ, Egger EL, James SP. The effect of knotting method on the structural properties of large diameter nonabsorbable monofilament sutures. Vet Surg 1999; 28 (04) 260-7.
8 Korvick DL, Johnson AL, Schaeffer DJ. Surgeons’ preferences in treating cranial cruciate ligament ruptures in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994; 205 (09) 1318-24.
9 Lewis DD, Milthorpe BK, Bellenger CR. Mechanical comparison of materials used for extra-capsular stabilisation of the stifle joint in dogs. Aust Vet J 1997; 75 (12) 890-6.
10 Lucas GL, Cooke FW, Friis EA. A Primer of Biomechanics. Lucas GL. ed. New York: Springer; 1999
11 Magilligan Jr. DJ, DeWeese JA. Knot security and synthetic suture materials. Am J Surg 1974; 127 (03) 355-8.
12 McCarthy RJ. Advances in Surgical Repair of the Cranial Cruciate Ligament: Extracapsular Techniques. 138th American Veterinary Medical Association Annual Convention. Boston: AVMA; 2001: 431-2.
13 McKee WM, Miller A. A self-locking knot for lateral fabellotibial suture stabilisation of the cranial cruciate ligament deficient stifle in the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 78-80.
14 Nwadike BS, Roe SC. Mechanical comparison of suture material and knot type used for fabello-tibial sutures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11: 47-52.
15 Patterson RH, Smith GK, Gregor TP, Newton CD. Biomechanical stability of four cranial cruciate ligament repair techniques in the dog. Vet Surg 1991; 20 (02) 85-90.
16 Piermattei DL, Flo GL. Brinker, Piermattei, and Flo’s Handbook of Small Animal Orthopaedics and Fracture Repair. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1997: 534-48.
17 Rosin E, Robinson GM. Knot security of suture materials. Vet Surg 1989; 18 (04) 269-73.
18 Shaw JA, Daubert HB. Compression capability of cerclage fixation systems. A biomechanical study. Orthopaedics 1988; 11 (08) 1169-74.
19 Vasseur PB, Pool RR, Arnoczky SP, Lau RE. Correlative biomechanical and histologic study of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1985; 46 (09) 1842-54.