Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12(03): 138-141
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632479
Clinical Communication
Schattauer GmbH

Comparison of Fishing Line for Repair of the Cruciate Deficient Stifle

Gretchen K. Sicard
1   From the Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
,
J. Meinen
1   From the Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
,
T. Phillips
1   From the Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
,
P. A. Manley
1   From the Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 14 September 1998

Accepted 08 February 1999

Publication Date:
09 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Numerous types of suture material have been used for extra-articular cranial cruciate ligament stabilization. Although monofilament nylon leader line is considered by some to be the most appropriate material for this procedure, monofilament nylon fishing line is a popular alternative (8, 13). The purpose of this study was to evaluate four brands of nylon fishing line in order to determine the superiority of the material as well as the sterilization method of choice. The four brands of monofilament fishing line tested were 36 kilogram test “Ande”, “Berkley”, “Hi-Seas”, and “Maxima”.

“Ande” and “Maxima” proved superior in strength prior to sterilization. When the materials were sterilized by ethylene oxide, minimal elongation was observed. However, there was a significant decrease in strength for three of the four materials (“Ande”, “Hi-Seas”, and “Maxima”) when compared to unsterilized or to steam sterilized samples. Steam sterilization resulted in significant elongation of all materials tested and had a variable effect on strength (either greater, equal, or less than no sterilization). Considering all materials, “Ande” was the nylon material of choice when ethylene oxide was used for sterilization, and “Ande” or “Maxima” were the nylon materials of choice when steam sterilization was used.

The strength and elongation of four brands of thirty-six-kilogram test monofilament nylon fishing line were tested using a materials testing machine without sterilization and following either steam or ethylene oxide sterilization. “Ande” was the nylon material of choice when ethylene oxide was used for sterilization and “Ande” or “Maxima” were the nylon materials of choice when steam sterilization was used.

Keywords

Cranial cruciate ligament - monofilament nylon - sterilization - material properties
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Ashford RD. Ashford's Dictionary of Industrial Chemicals. London: Wavelength Publications Ltd; 1994: 724-6.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Blood DC, Studdert VP. Bailliere's Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary. London: Bailliere Tindall; 1988: 339.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Boothe HW. Selecting suture materials for small animal surgery. Comp Cont Ed 1998; 20 (02) 155-201.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Butler DL, Hulse DA, Kay MD, Grood ES, Shires PK, D'Ambrosia R, Shoji H. Biomechanics of cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction in the dog II. Mechanical properties. Vet Surg 1983; 12 (03) 113-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Caporn TM, Roe SC. Biomechanical evaluation of the suitability of monofilament nylon fishing and leader line for extra-articular stabilization of the canine cruciate-deficient stifle. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 9: 126-33.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Harari J. Cranial cruciate ligament injury. Compendium 1996; 18 (11) 1185-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hulse DA, Butler DL, Kay MD, Noyes FR, Shires PK, D'Ambrosia R, Shoji H. Biomechanics of cranial cruciate ligament reconstruction in the dog I. In vitro laxity testing. Vet Surg 1983; 12 (03) 109-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Korvick DL, Johnson AL, Schaeffer DJ. Surgeons' preferences in treating cranial cruciate ligament ruptures in dogs. JAVMA 1994; 205 (09) 1318-24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lewis DD, Milthorpe BK, Bellenger CR. Mechanical comparison of materials used for extra-capsular stabilization of the stifle joint in dogs. Aust Vet J 1997; 75 (12) 890-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mark HF, Kroschwitz JI. Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 1988: 423-37.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Moore KW, Read RA. Rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs - Part I. Comp Cont Ed 1996; 18 (03) 223-33.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moore KW, Read RA. Rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in dogs - Part II. Diagnosis and management. Comp Cont Ed 1996; 18 (04) 381-91.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nwadike BS, Roe SC. Mechanical comparison of suture material and knot type used for fabello-tibial sutures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11: 47-52.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Prostredny JM, Bauer MS, Blevins WE, Widmer WR, Davidson JR, Aiken SW, Toombs JP. Effect of suture type on stifle joint biomechanics after extra-articular repair of cranial cruciate ligament transection in the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1991; 4: 144-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rubin II. Handbook of Plastic Materials and Technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 1990: 161-70.
    Google Scholar