Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2017
Biomechanical Comparison of Fixed-Loop and Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspensory Devices for Metaphyseal Femoral-Sided Soft Tissue Graft Fixation in Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Porcine Model.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nye Darin D, Mitchell W Ryan, Liu Wei, Ostrander Roger V
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the displacement, stiffness, and ultimate failure load of a fixed-loop cortical suspensory device with 2 adjustable-loop devices when positioned on metaphyseal bone.
METHODS: Thirty devices (10 of each device) were positioned on the metaphyseal cortex of 30 porcine femora simulating anatomic anterior cruciate ligament femoral tunnel placement. Bovine tendons were used for soft tissue grafts, and the constructs were then cycled 1,000 times and pulled to failure, measuring displacement, stiffness, and failure load.
RESULTS: Initial displacement, cyclic displacement, and total displacement were 2.98 mm, 2.09 mm, and 5.08 mm for the Endobutton CL (ECL), 2.82 mm, 2.27 mm, and 5.09 mm for the Tightrope (TRT), and 4.25 mm, 3.19 mm, and 7.44 mm for the adjustable-loop ToggleLoc Inline with Ziploop (TLZ), respectively. There was no difference between the ECL and the TRT on any measured outcome. Differences between the TLZ and ECL were statistically significant (initial displacement P = .024, cyclic displacement P < .001, and total displacement P < .001), as were those between the TLZ and TRT (initial displacement P = .010, cyclic displacement P = .001, and total displacement P < .001). Failure loads were 804 N, 801 N, and 682 N for the TRT, ECL, and TLZ, respectively, with no statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: When positioned on the metaphyseal cortex, there was no difference in the biomechanical performance of the fixed-loop ECL and adjustable-loop TRT, and no lengthening of the TRTs was observed during cycling. However, the TLZ showed statistically significantly lower stiffness and more displacement during cycling with lengthening of the adjustable loop, the clinical significance of which is unknown.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When used for femoral-sided soft tissue graft fixation in an anatomically placed femoral tunnel, the adjustable-loop TRT was biomechanically equivalent to the fixed-loop ECL. However, the adjustable-loop TLZ showed displacement during biomechanical testing that could potentially contribute to clinical failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. However, the clinical significance was not directly tested.
METHODS: Thirty devices (10 of each device) were positioned on the metaphyseal cortex of 30 porcine femora simulating anatomic anterior cruciate ligament femoral tunnel placement. Bovine tendons were used for soft tissue grafts, and the constructs were then cycled 1,000 times and pulled to failure, measuring displacement, stiffness, and failure load.
RESULTS: Initial displacement, cyclic displacement, and total displacement were 2.98 mm, 2.09 mm, and 5.08 mm for the Endobutton CL (ECL), 2.82 mm, 2.27 mm, and 5.09 mm for the Tightrope (TRT), and 4.25 mm, 3.19 mm, and 7.44 mm for the adjustable-loop ToggleLoc Inline with Ziploop (TLZ), respectively. There was no difference between the ECL and the TRT on any measured outcome. Differences between the TLZ and ECL were statistically significant (initial displacement P = .024, cyclic displacement P < .001, and total displacement P < .001), as were those between the TLZ and TRT (initial displacement P = .010, cyclic displacement P = .001, and total displacement P < .001). Failure loads were 804 N, 801 N, and 682 N for the TRT, ECL, and TLZ, respectively, with no statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: When positioned on the metaphyseal cortex, there was no difference in the biomechanical performance of the fixed-loop ECL and adjustable-loop TRT, and no lengthening of the TRTs was observed during cycling. However, the TLZ showed statistically significantly lower stiffness and more displacement during cycling with lengthening of the adjustable loop, the clinical significance of which is unknown.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When used for femoral-sided soft tissue graft fixation in an anatomically placed femoral tunnel, the adjustable-loop TRT was biomechanically equivalent to the fixed-loop ECL. However, the adjustable-loop TLZ showed displacement during biomechanical testing that could potentially contribute to clinical failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. However, the clinical significance was not directly tested.