Evaluation of a New Femoral Fixation Device in a Simulated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro biomechanical study was to determine the cyclic elongation and failure properties of a new anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction device and compare the results with several devices that are currently available. METHODS: We performed 10 ACL reconstructions in 4 groups using fresh porcine femurs and doubled lateral extensor of the toes tendons. Manufacturer guidelines were followed for fixation by use of either of 2 cortical suspension devices (XO Button [ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL] and EndoButton CL [Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA]), a bio-interference screw (BioScrew; ConMed Linvatec), or a corticocancellous fixation device (Pinn-ACL; ConMed Linvatec). Reconstructions were subjected to cyclic loading to 150 N for 2,000 cycles, followed by static failure tests. RESULTS: The two cortical suspension devices performed similarly to one another: the XO Button device had a significantly lower elongation amplitude than the EndoButton (P < .05). There were no significant differences in longer-term creep performance or static strength or stiffness. Compared with an interference screw, the XO Button had significantly less creep and higher failure load (P < .05). The corticocancellous device had the lowest creep and cyclic elongation amplitude and the highest strength and stiffness of the devices tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this in vitro evaluation, reconstructions with the XO Button and EndoButton exhibited very similar biomechanical performance, and our hypothesis was not supported: the XO Button did not limit creep more than the EndoButton. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this preclinical in vitro testing suggest that the new device is expected to provide clinical results similar to those of the EndoButton, a well-established device for ACL reconstruction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".