Injury · 2023
Biomechanical comparison of tension band suture fixation and tension band wiring in olecranon fractures.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Vesterby Liv, Haugaard Asger Martin, Adjal Jonas, Muhudin Huda Ibrahim, Sert Kevser, Thomsen Morten Grove, Ban Ilija, Ohrt-Nissen Søren
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Traditional tension band wire fixation (TBWF) of olecranon fractures is associated with high revision rates due to implant-related complications. The purpose of the study was to compare the strength of fixation in olecranon fractures between TBWF and an all-suture based technique.
METHODS: A transverse fracture was created in 20 paired fresh-frozen human cadaveric elbows. Fractures were randomly (alternating right-left) assigned for fixation with either tension band suture fixation (TBSF) or TBWF. The elbow was fixed in 90° of flexion and underwent cycling loading by pulling the triceps tendon to 300 N for 200 cycles. Fracture displacement was optically recorded using digital image correlation (DIC). Finally, load-to-failure was assessed by a monotonic pull to 1000 N and failure mechanism was recorded.
RESULTS: Two specimens in the TBSF group were excluded from the cycling loading analysis due to technical difficulties with the DIC. After cyclic loading, median (min-max) fracture displacement was 0.28 mm (0.10-0.44) in the TBSF group and 0.18 mm (0.00-1.48) in the TBWF group (p = 0.315). No difference was found between the two groups in the repeated measures analysis of variance (p = 0.329). In the load-to-failure test, 6/10 specimens failed in the TBSF group (median load-to-failure 791 N) vs. 8/10 in the TBWF group (median load-to-failure 747 N). The TBSF constructs failed due to fracture of the dorsal cortex, suture breakage or triceps failure. The TBWF constructs failed due to breakage of the wire.
CONCLUSION: There was no difference in fixation strength between the TBWF and TBSF constructs. Our findings suggest TBSF to be a feasible alternative to TBWF and we hypothesize that a non-metallic implant may have fewer implant-related complications.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study.
METHODS: A transverse fracture was created in 20 paired fresh-frozen human cadaveric elbows. Fractures were randomly (alternating right-left) assigned for fixation with either tension band suture fixation (TBSF) or TBWF. The elbow was fixed in 90° of flexion and underwent cycling loading by pulling the triceps tendon to 300 N for 200 cycles. Fracture displacement was optically recorded using digital image correlation (DIC). Finally, load-to-failure was assessed by a monotonic pull to 1000 N and failure mechanism was recorded.
RESULTS: Two specimens in the TBSF group were excluded from the cycling loading analysis due to technical difficulties with the DIC. After cyclic loading, median (min-max) fracture displacement was 0.28 mm (0.10-0.44) in the TBSF group and 0.18 mm (0.00-1.48) in the TBWF group (p = 0.315). No difference was found between the two groups in the repeated measures analysis of variance (p = 0.329). In the load-to-failure test, 6/10 specimens failed in the TBSF group (median load-to-failure 791 N) vs. 8/10 in the TBWF group (median load-to-failure 747 N). The TBSF constructs failed due to fracture of the dorsal cortex, suture breakage or triceps failure. The TBWF constructs failed due to breakage of the wire.
CONCLUSION: There was no difference in fixation strength between the TBWF and TBSF constructs. Our findings suggest TBSF to be a feasible alternative to TBWF and we hypothesize that a non-metallic implant may have fewer implant-related complications.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study.