Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 06(02): 85-92
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633025
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

An in vitro Comparison of Two Replacement Techniques Utilizing Fascia Lata after Cranial Cruciate Ligament Transection in the Dog

G. L. Coetzee
1   Department of Surgery, University of Pretoria, South Africa
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received for publication 29 July 1992

Publication Date:
09 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The immediate postoperative biomechanical properties of an “underand-over” cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) replacement technique consisting of fascia lata and the lateral onethird of the patellar ligament, were compared with that of a modified intra- and extracapsular “under-and-over-the-top” (UOTT) method. The right CCL in twelve adult dogs was dissected out and replaced with an autograft. The contralateral, intact CCL served as the control. In group A, the graft was secured to the lateral femoral condyle with a spiked washer and screw. In group B the intracapsular graft was secured to the lateral femoro-fabellar ligament, and the remainder to the patellar tendon. Both CCL replacement techniques exhibited a 2.0 ± 0.5 mm anterior drawer immediately after the operation. After skeletonization of the stifles, the length and cross-sectional area of the intact CCL and CCL substitutes were determined. Each bone-ligament unit was tested in linear tension to failure at a fixed distraction rate of 15 mm/s with the stifle in 120° flexion. Data was processed to obtain the corresponding material parameters (modulus, stress and strain in the linear loading region, and energy absorption to maximum load).

The immediate postoperative structural and material properties of the “under-and-over” cranial cruciate ligament replacement technique with autogenous fascia lata, were compared to that of a modified intra- and extracapsular “under-and-over-the-top” (UOTT) method. The combined UOT T technique was slightly stronger (6%), but allowed 2.8 ± 0.9 mm more cranial tibial displacement at maximum linear force.

Keywords

Cranial cruciate ligament - fascia lata - biomechanical properties - dog
 

  • References

  • 1 Arnoczky SP. The cruciate ligaments: the enigma of the canine stifle. J Small Anim Pract 1988; 29: 71-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Arnoczky SP, Marshall JL. The cruciate ligaments of the canine stifle: an anatomical and functional analysis. Am J Vet Res 1977; 38: 1807-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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: 113-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Butler DL, Noyes FR, Grood ES. Ligamentous restraints to anterior posterior drawer in the human knee. A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg 1980; 62-A: 259-70.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Arnoczky SP, Torzilli P, Marshall JL. Biomechanical evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament repair in the dog: an analysis of the instant center of motion. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1977; 13: 553-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hulse DA, Butler DL, Kay MD. et al. Biomechanics of cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction in the dog 1. In vitro laxity testing. Vet Surg 1983; 12: 109-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hulse DA, Shires PK. The stifle joint. In: Textbook of Small Animal Surgery, Vol 2. Slatter DH. (ed). Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1985: 2193-235.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Hulse DA, Michaelson F, Johnson C, Ab delbaki YZ. A technique for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in the dog: preliminary report. Vet Surg 1980; 9: 135-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Arnoczky SP, Tarvin GB, Marshall JL, Saltzman B. The over the top procedure: a technique for anterior cruciate ligament substitution in the dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1979; 15: 283-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Denny HR, Barr AR. An evaluation of two “over-the-top” techniques for anterior cruciate ligament replacement in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1984; 25: 759-69.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bennett D, May C. An “over-the-top with tibial tunnel” technique for repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1991; 32: 103-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Denny HR, Barr AR. A further evaluation of the “over-the-top” technique for anterior cruciate ligament replacement in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1987; 28: 681-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Denny HR, Goodship AE. Replacement of the anterior cruciate ligament with carbon fibre in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1980; 21: 279-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Shires PK, Hulse DA, Liu W. The under-and-over fascial replacement technique for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: a retrospective study. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1984; 20: 69-77.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Meyers JF, Grana WA, Lesker PA. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in the dog. Comparison of results with three different porous synthetic materials. Am J Sports Med 1979; 7: 85-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stead AC, Amis AA, Campbell JR. Use of polyester fibre as a prosthetic cranial cruciate ligament in small animals. J Small Anim Pract 1991; 32: 448-54.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Noyes FR, DeLucas JL, Torvic PJ. Biomechanics of anterior cruciate ligament failure: an analysis of strain-rate sensitivity and mechanisms of failure in primates. J Bone Joint Surg 1974; 56-A: 236-53.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vasseur PB, Pool RR, Arnoczky SP, Lau RE. Correlative biomechanical and histologic study of the cranial cruciate ligaments in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1985; 46: 1842-54.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Noyes FR, Grood ES. The strength of the anterior cruciate ligament in humans and Rhesus monkeys. J Bone Joint Surg 1976; 58-A, 8: 1074-82.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Noyes FR, Butler DL, Grood ES. et al. Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg 1984; 66-A: 344-52.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Butler DL, Grood ES, Noyes FR, Sodd AN. On the interpretation of our anterior cruciate ligament data. Clin Orthop 1985; 196: 26-34.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc.. SAS/STAT version 5 User’s Guide, Release 6.03 Edition SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina 1988
    PubMed
  • 23 Johnson SG, Hulse DA, Hogan HA. et al. System behavior of commonly used cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction autografts. Vet Surg 1989; 18: 459-65.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gupta BN, Brinkcr WO, Subramanian KN. Breaking strength of cruciate ligaments in the dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1969; 155: 1586-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Yoshiya S, Andrish JT, Manley MT, Bauer TW. Graft tension in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vivo study in dogs. Am J Sports Med 1987; 15: 464-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Roush JK, Kirby BM, Manley PA, Howard PE. Chronic osteomyelitis associated with orthopedic implants and cranial cruciate repair in three dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990; 7: 1123-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mathicsen EB, Lindgren JU, Rcinholt FP, Sudmann E. Tissue reactions to wear products from polyacetal (Dclrin) and UHMW polyethylene in total hip replacement. J Biomed Matter Res 1987; 21: 459-66.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar