• S Lenschow, B Schliemann, M Schulze, M Raschke, and C Kösters.
• Department of Trauma, Hand and, Reconstructive Surgery, Wilhelms University Muenster, Waldeyerstraße 1, 48149, Münster, Germany, simon.lenschow@ukmuenster.de.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Sep 1;134(9):1293-9.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of tibial fixation of a free tendon graft in ACL reconstruction using the Shim, a new wedge-shaped implant, in an outside-in technique to fixation by the Shim used in an inside-out technique and fixation by interference screw in a porcine model.Materials And MethodsPorcine tibia and flexor tendons were used. In Group 1, the Shim was applied outside-in. In Group 2, the Shim was inserted inside-out. In the Group 3, an 8-mm interference screw was used. Ten specimens were tested in each group. Load-to-failure, elongation, stiffness and failure mode were recorded. Cyclic loading was performed between 5 and 250 N for 1,000 cycles, followed by a load to failure testing.ResultsMean maximum load-to-failure was 629.53 N in Group 1,648.54 N in Group 2 and 749.53 N in Group 3. There was no significant difference between the groups. Stiffness varied between 127.34 N/mm in Group 1, 151.27 N/mm in Group 2 and 182.25 N/mm in Group 3. No significant differences were found between outside-in Shim and interference screw fixation. No significant difference was found for elongation among the three groups. The main failure mode was a rupture of the tendon in the IFS group and a slippage of either the implant or the tendon in both groups using the Shim.ConclusionsAs no statistically significant difference could be seen concerning load to failure, stiffness and elongation between the inside-out and the outside-in techniques, the Shim can be used for tibial fixation in an outside-in or inside-out technique depending on the preference of the surgeon. To prevent slippage of the graft a hybrid fixation should be considered.

14 keywords...

hide…