In vitro mechanical evaluation and comparison of two crimping devices for securing monofilament nylon and multifilament polyethylene for use in extracapsular stabilization of the canine stifle

Summary

Objective: To compare the tensile strength and stiffness of non-absorbable suture loops created with two types of crimping devices.

Methods: Loops of monofilament nylon leader line (MN) of 18 kg, 36 kg, and 45 kg multifilament polyethylene (MP) with a crimp and MP with a crimp and knot were mechanically tested to failure in quasistatic tensile loading after being created with either a wave pattern crimp device or three applications of a single crimp device. Each testing group consisted of five samples. Tensile loading to failure at a rate of 9.5 mm/s was used. Failure was defined as a sudden drop in the recorded force.

Results: All suture materials failed by breaking near the crimp tube with both crimp devices, with exception of the MP without knot, which slipped through the crimp tube using both devices. Sutures secured with the wave pattern crimping device were significantly stronger with a higher load yield, maximum load, displacement yield, failure displacement, and maximum displacement than the single crimp device. Loops of MP suture crimped by either device plus the addition of a surgeon's knot resulted in a significantly stronger construct than unknotted crimped MP constructs. Crimped MP combined with knot were significantly stiffer, but not stronger, than crimped 45 kg MN.

Clinical significance: Performing extra- capsular repair for ruptured cranial cruciate ligaments with the wave pattern crimp system may result in lower failure rates due to the construct being significantly stronger than the single crimp system.

Keywords

cruciate - crimp - multifilment polyethylene - monofilament nylon - PowerX - universal

• References

• 1 Hoffmann DE, Miller JM, Ober CP. et al. Tibial tuberosity advancement in 65 canine stifles. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006; 19: 219-227.
• 2 Montavon PM, Damur DM, Tepic S. Tibial tuberosity advancement for the treatment of cranial cruciate disease in dogs: evidences, technique, and initial clinical results. In: Vezzoni A. ed. Proceedings of the 12th ESVOT Congress. 2004. September 10-12 Munich, Germany: European Society of Veterinary Orthopedics and Traumatology; 2004: 254-255.
• 3 Arnoczky SP, Tarvin GB, Marshall JL. et al. The over-the top procedure: a technique for anterior cruciate ligament substitution in the dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1979; 15: 283-290.
• 4 Slocum B, Slocum TD. Tibial plateau leveling osteotomy for repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in the canine. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1993; 23: 777-795.
• 5 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; 57: 79-84.
• 6 Conzemius MG, Evans RB, Besancon MF. et al. Effect of surgical technique on limb function after surgery for rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs. J Am VetMed Assoc 2005; 226: 232-236.
• 7 Aragon CL, Budsberg SC. Applications of evidence-based medicine: cranial cruciate ligament injury repair in the dog. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 93-98.
• 8 Piermattei DL, Flo GL. The stifle joint. In: Piermattei DL, Flo GL, DeCamp CE. editors. Brinker, Piermattei and Flo's Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co; 2006. pg. 562-632.
• 9 Vasseur PB. Stifle joint. In: Slatter DH. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 2003; 2090-2133.
• 10 Dulisch M. Suture reaction following extra-articular stifle stabilization in the dog. Part 1: a retrospective study of 161 stifles. J Am Amin Hosp Assoc 1981; 17: 569-571.
• 11 Dulisch ML. Suture reaction following extra-articular stabilization in the dog. Part II: a prospective study of 66 stifles. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1981; 17: 572-574.
• 12 Nwadike BS, Roe SC. Mechanical comparison of suture material and knot type used for fabello-tibial sutures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11: 52-57.
• 13 Sicard GK, Meinen J, Phillips T. et al. Comparison of fishing line for repair of the cruciate deficient stifle. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 138-141.
• 14 Caporn TM, Roe SC. Biomechanical evaluation of the suitability of MN nylon fishing and leader line for extra-articular stabilization of the canine cruciate-deficient stifle. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 9: 126-133.
• 15 Anderson CC, Tomlinson JL. Daly et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a crimp clamp system for loop fixation of MN nylon leader material used for stabilization of the canine stifle joint. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 533-539.
• 16 Sicard GK, Hayashi K, Manley PA. Evaluation of 5 types of fishing material, 2 sterilization methods, and a crimp-clamp system for extra-articular stabilization of the canine stifle joint. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 78-84.
• 17 Schmiedt CW. Suture Material, Tissue Staplers, Ligation Devices and Closure Methods. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA. editors. Veterinary Surgery Small Animal. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. pg. 187-200.
• 18 Guénégo L, Zahra A, Madelénat A. et al. Cranial cruciate ligament rupture in large and giant dogs: A retrospective evaluation of a modified lateral extracapsular stabilization. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 43-50.
• 19 Banwell MN, Kerwin SC, Hosgood G. et al. In vitro evaluation of the 18 and 36 kg Securos Cranial Cruciate Ligament Repair System. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 283-288.
• 20 Moores AP, Beck AL, Jespers KM. et al. Mechanical evaluation of two crimp clamp systems for extracapsular stabilization of the cranial cruciate ligament-deficient canine stifle. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 470-475.
• 21 Burgess R, Elder S, McLaughlin R. et al. In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation and Comparison of FiberWire, FiberTape, OrthoFiber, and Nylon Leader Line for Potential Use During Extraarticular Stabilization Of Canine Cruciate Deficient Stifles. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 208-215.