Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2019; 32(06): 525-531
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1655765
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Intra-Articular Biocompatibility of Multistranded, Long-Chain Polyethylene Suture Tape in a Canine ACL Model

Patrick A. Smith
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Columbia Orthopaedic Group, Columbia, Missouri
,
Chantelle C. Bozynski
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
3   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Keiichi Kuroki
3   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Sarah M. Henrich
4   Department of Research and Development, Arthrex Inc., Munich, Germany
,
Coen A. Wijdicks
4   Department of Research and Development, Arthrex Inc., Munich, Germany
,
James L. Cook
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
3   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 March 2018

21 April 2018

Publication Date:
31 May 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess intra-articular use of a nonabsorbable braided suture tape for its biocompatibility when implanted adjacent to the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in a canine model. Establishing biocompatibility of suture tape in the knee is an important foundational step for clinicians considering use of suture tape augmentation for ACL reconstruction or repair. The study hypothesis was that a nonabsorbable braided suture tape would be biocompatible in the knee with no resultant adverse functional consequences, and no significant intra-articular synovial reactions or articular cartilage degeneration attributable to direct exposure to the suture tape, whether intact or transected. Nonabsorbable braided suture tape was arthroscopically implanted adjacent to the native ACL of dogs (n = 6). The suture was intact in half of the dogs and was transected in the other half as a “worst-case” scenario. Dogs were assessed for postoperative complications and morbidity. Arthroscopic grading of synovium and cartilage was performed at 4 and 6 months. Histologic assessments were performed at the 6-month endpoint and compared with the ACL partial tear (n = 9) and ACL reconstruction (n = 5) cohorts as well as historical sham controls. No postoperative complications were noted. No animal developed lameness or clinical dysfunction, and there were no severe inflammatory or immune responses, cartilage erosions, or premature osteoarthritis noted. Arthroscopic assessments revealed no to mild synovitis and no apparent cartilage damage in either group. Histologically, both the intact and transected suture tape groups were associated with significantly (p ≤ 0.05) less synovial and articular cartilage pathology compared with the partial ACL transection and patellar bone–tendon–bone ACL autograft reconstruction cohorts, and matched historical sham controls. The hypothesis was accepted as study results support the biocompatibility of suture tape in the canine knee.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - suture tape - FiberTape - internal bracing - biocompatibility
 

  • References

  • 1 Kim HS, Seon JK, Jo AR. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res 2013; 25 (04) 165-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gianotti SM, Marshall SW, Hume PA, Bunt L. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: a national population-based study. J Sci Med Sport 2009; 12 (06) 622-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Allen CR, Giffin JR, Harner CD. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop Clin North Am 2003; 34 (01) 79-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barrett GR, Noojin FK, Hartzog CW, Nash CR. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in females: a comparison of hamstring versus patellar tendon autograft. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (01) 46-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vergis A, Gillquist J. Graft failure in intra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a review of the literature. Arthroscopy 1995; 11 (03) 312-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wolf RS, Lemak LJ. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. J South Orthop Assoc 2002; 11 (01) 25-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Webster KE, Feller JA. Exploring the high reinjury rate in younger patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (11) 2827-2832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Allen MM, Pareek A, Krych AJ. , et al. Are female soccer players at an increased risk of second anterior cruciate ligament injury compared with their athletic peers?. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (10) 2492-2498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wright RW, Magnussen RA, Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (12) 1159-1165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chalmers PN, Mall NA, Moric M. , et al. Does ACL reconstruction alter natural history? A systematic literature review of long-term outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (04) 292-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thompson SM, Salmon LJ, Waller A, Linklater J, Roe JP, Pinczewski LA. Twenty-year outcome of a longitudinal prospective evaluation of isolated endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon or hamstring autograft. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (12) 3083-3094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hermans J, Koopmanschap MA, Bierma-Zeinstra SM. , et al. Productivity costs and medical costs among working patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64 (06) 853-861
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Leardini G, Salaffi F, Caporali R, Canesi B, Rovati L, Montanelli R. ; Italian Group for Study of the Costs of Arthritis. Direct and indirect costs of osteoarthritis of the knee. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2004; 22 (06) 699-706
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Loza E, Lopez-Gomez JM, Abasolo L, Maese J, Carmona L, Batlle-Gualda E. ; Artrocad Study Group. Economic burden of knee and hip osteoarthritis in Spain. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61 (02) 158-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rabenda V, Manette C, Lemmens R, Mariani AM, Struvay N, Reginster JY. Direct and indirect costs attributable to osteoarthritis in active subjects. J Rheumatol 2006; 33 (06) 1152-1158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Smith JO, Yasen SK, Palmer HC, Lord BR, Britton EM, Wilson AJ. Paediatric ACL repair reinforced with temporary internal bracing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (06) 1845-1851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Smith PA, Bley JA. Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction utilizing internal brace augmentation. Arthrosc Tech 2016; 5 (05) e1143-e1147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yoo JS, Yang EA. Clinical results of an arthroscopic modified Brostrom operation with and without an internal brace. J Orthop Traumatol 2016; 17 (04) 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mackay GM, Blyth MJ, Anthony I, Hopper GP, Ribbans WJ. A review of ligament augmentation with the InternalBrace™: the surgical principle is described for the lateral ankle ligament and ACL repair in particular, and a comprehensive review of other surgical applications and techniques is presented. Surg Technol Int 2015; 26: 239-255
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Batty LM, Norsworthy CJ, Lash NJ, Wasiak J, Richmond AK, Feller JA. Synthetic devices for reconstructive surgery of the cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (05) 957-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Legnani C, Ventura A, Terzaghi C, Borgo E, Albisetti W. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with synthetic grafts. A review of literature. Int Orthop 2010; 34 (04) 465-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Klein W, Jensen KU. Synovitis and artificial ligaments. Arthroscopy 1992; 8 (01) 116-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maletius W, Gillquist J. Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a Dacron prosthesis. The frequency of osteoarthritis after seven to eleven years. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25 (03) 288-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Prescott RJ, Ryan WG, Bisset DL. Histopathological features of failed prosthetic Leeds-Keio anterior cruciate ligaments. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47 (04) 375-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cook JL, Smith P, Stannard JP. , et al. A canine arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction model for study of synthetic augmentation of tendon allografts. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (07) 704-711
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 van Eck CF, Limpisvasti O, ElAttrache NS. Is there a role for internal bracing and repair of the anterior cruciate ligament? A systematic literature review. Am J Sports Med 2017 Doi: 10.1177/0363546517717956
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cook JL, Smith PA, Stannard JP. , et al. A canine hybrid double-bundle model for study of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Res 2015; 33 (08) 1171-1179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Smith PA, Stannard JP, Pfeiffer FM, Kuroki K, Bozynski CC, Cook JL. Suspensory versus interference screw fixation for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a translational large-animal model. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (06) 1086-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cook JL, Hung CT, Kuroki K. , et al. Animal models of cartilage repair. Bone Joint Res 2014; 3 (04) 89-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Food and Drug Administration. Use of International Standard ISO 10993–1: “Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process.” June 2016. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm348890.pdf . Accessed March 13, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bozynski CC, Kuroki K, Stannard JP. , et al. Evaluation of partial transection versus synovial debridement of the ACL as novel canine models for management of ACL injuries. J Knee Surg 2015; 28 (05) 404-410
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cook JL, Kuroki K, Visco D, Pelletier JP, Schulz L, Lafeber FP. The OARSI histopathology initiative - recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the dog. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18 (Suppl. 03) S66-S79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cook JL, Smith PA, Stannard JP. , et al. Effects of synthetic augmentation of tendon allografts for complete ACL reconstruction in a translational animal model. Poster No. 0617: Orthopeadic Research Society Annual Meeting; 2017. San Diego, CA, March 19–22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Nagelli CV, Cook JL, Kuroki K, Bozynski C, Ma R, Hewett TE. Does anterior cruciate ligament innervation matter for joint function and development of osteoarthritis?. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (04) 364-371
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bozynski CC, Stannard JP, Smith P. , et al. Acute management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries using novel canine models. J Knee Surg 2016; 29 (07) 594-603
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Foster TE, Wolfe BL, Ryan S, Silvestri L, Kaye EK. Does the graft source really matter in the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? An evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction results: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (01) 189-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sherman OH, Banffy MB. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: which graft is best?. Arthroscopy 2004; 20 (09) 974-980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Jackson DW, Grood ES, Goldstein JD. , et al. A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and allograft used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the goat model. Am J Sports Med 1993; 21 (02) 176-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J. , et al. Autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized clinical study with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (10) 2501-2509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Magnussen RA, Lawrence JT, West RL, Toth AP, Taylor DC, Garrett WE. Graft size and patient age are predictors of early revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (04) 526-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J. , et al. The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Cohort Study. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (12) 1948-1953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Brandt KD. Transection of the anterior cruciate ligament in the dog: a model of osteoarthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1991; 21 (03) (Suppl. 02) 22-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Adams ME, Brandt KD. Hypertrophic repair of canine articular cartilage in osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament transection. J Rheumatol 1991; 18 (03) 428-435
    PubMedGoogle Scholar