Mechanical Comparison of Loop and Crimp Configurations for Extracapsular Stabilization of the Cranial Cruciate Ligament‐Deficient Stifle

Objective To biomechanically compare different loop and crimp configurations used for extracapsular suture stabilization of the CCL‐deficient stifle. Study Design In vitro study. Sample Population Crimped loop constructs of 100 lb Ande type nylon leader line in 7 different configurations comprising single and double loops, single and double crimps, and the interlocking loop configuration. Methods Constructs premade on external skeletal fixator bars 60 mm apart and tested in tension with a custom‐made split circular arm mounted on a table‐top materials testing machine. Data were derived from force/displacement plots. In “load to failure” test (10/group) constructs were loaded to failure with distraction rates of 10 mm/min; ultimate load, tension at 2 mm elongation and failure were recorded. In “staircase” test (5/group) constructs cycled at 100 N/s from 75 N with incremental increases of 50 N/cycle; ultimate load, maximum tension before elongation at rest over 2 mm and failure were recorded. In “cycling and jumping” test (10/group) 3 of 7 constructs cycled at 100 N/s 100 times from 50 to 100 N, then 5 times from 50 to 600 N; failure and elongation at cycles 1, 50 and 100 and at jumps 1 to 5 recorded. Results Double‐loop double‐crimp configurations were statistically superior to all other configurations in ultimate load, and to single‐loop and interlocking loop configurations in elongation in “load to failure” and “staircase” tests. In “cycling and jumping” test the interlocking loop configuration specimens elongated significantly more than the others and only in the double‐loop double‐crimp group did all constructs complete the test. Conclusions Double‐loop double‐crimp configurations are mechanically superior to other previously described configurations.