Get access

Mechanical Evaluation of Two Crimp Clamp Systems for Extracapsular Stabilization of the Cranial Cruciate Ligament-Deficient Canine Stifle

Authors

  • ANDREW P. MOORES BVSc, DSAS(Orth), Diplomate ECVS,

    1. Departments of Veterinary Clinical Science and Veterinary Basic Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • ALISON L. BECK BVSc(Hons), CertSAS, Diplomate ECVS,

    1. Departments of Veterinary Clinical Science and Veterinary Basic Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • KARIN J. M. JESPERS BSc, MSc,

    1. Departments of Veterinary Clinical Science and Veterinary Basic Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • ZOË HALFACREE MA, VetMB, CertVDI,

    1. Departments of Veterinary Clinical Science and Veterinary Basic Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • ALAN M. WILSON BSc, BVMS, PhD

    1. Departments of Veterinary Clinical Science and Veterinary Basic Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author

Errata

This article is corrected by:

  1. Errata: ERRATUM Volume 35, Issue 8, 797, Article first published online: 11 December 2006

  • This study was supported by the donation of materials by Veterinary Instrumentation, Sheffield, UK, and Securos Veterinary Orthopaedics, Charlton, MA.

Address reprint requests to Andrew Moores, BVSc, DSAS(Orth), Diplomate ECVS, Department of Veterinary Clinical Science, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts. AL9 7TA, UK. E-mail: amoores@rvc.ac.uk.

Abstract

Objective— To compare the mechanical properties and interoperator variabilities of 2 crimp clamp systems for extracapsular, fabello-tibial, nylon loop stabilization of the cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle in dogs.

Study Design— In vitro mechanical testing.

Methods— Three operators with different grip strengths each secured 20 standardized nylon loops using stainless-steel crimp clamps: 10 using a Veterinary Instrumentation system (45 kg [100 lb] test nylon leader line, 12 mm crimp clamps) and 10 using a Securos system (36 kg [80 lb] test nylon leader line, 36 kg [80 lb] crimp clamps). Loops were tensile loaded to failure in a materials testing machine.

Results— Mean ultimate load and mean stiffness were significantly higher for the Securos (336.9 N, 60.6 N/mm) than for the Veterinary Instrumentation system (113.8 N, 37.0 N/mm). For both systems, ultimate load was subject to interoperator variability.

Conclusions— The Securos loops were significantly stronger and stiffer than the Veterinary Instrumentation loops for all operators, but significant differences between operators for ultimate load existed for both systems.

Clinical Relevance— Securos fabello-tibial sutures will withstand greater loads than Veterinary Instrumentation sutures and this is particularly true for sutures created by surgeons with reduced grip strength. It may be necessary to use more than 1 Veterinary Instrumentation suture to match the ultimate load and stiffness of a Securos suture.

Ancillary