Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2021
Biomechanical assessment of two types and two different locations of subtalar arthroereisis implants for flexible flatfoot: A cadaveric study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Wang Sen, Yu Jian, Helili Maimaitirexiati, Zhang Chao, Huang Jiazhang, Wang Xu, Chen Li, Ma Xin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Subtalar arthroereisis refers to the implantation of a sinus tarsi implant for the treatment of flexible flatfoot. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability to correct the flatfoot deformity and contact pressure of the posterior subtalar joint between two types of self-locking wedge implants and between two different positions for the same device in a cadaveric flatfoot model.
METHODS: The flatfoot model was created in ten cadaver feet through ligament sectioning and cyclic loading. Three kinds of arthroereisis procedures were evaluated: Talar-Fit (type I self-locking wedge implant) anchored in the sinus portion of the tarsal sinus (T-sinus group), Talar-Fit in the canalis portion (T-canalis group), and HyProCure (type II) in the canalis portion (H group). Corrective ability in the sagittal and transverse planes were measured with clinometers. Contact pressure was measured with pressure-sensitive films.
FINDINGS: T-canalis group provided more sagittal (mean difference for size 10 mm: 1.9°, P = 0.014; mean difference for size 11 mm: 3.1°, P = 0.037) and transverse (mean difference for size 8 mm: 1.8°, P = 0.049; mean difference for size 11 mm: 2.2°, P = 0.049) corrections than T-sinus group. The flattening process shifted the peak pressure of the posterior subtalar joint to the posteromedial side (P < 0.05) and arthroereisis helped the distribution of contact pressure restore uniformity (all P > 0.05).
INTERPRETATION: A self-locking wedge implant inserted in the canalis portion of the tarsal sinus achieved better correction than an implant inserted in the sinus portion.
METHODS: The flatfoot model was created in ten cadaver feet through ligament sectioning and cyclic loading. Three kinds of arthroereisis procedures were evaluated: Talar-Fit (type I self-locking wedge implant) anchored in the sinus portion of the tarsal sinus (T-sinus group), Talar-Fit in the canalis portion (T-canalis group), and HyProCure (type II) in the canalis portion (H group). Corrective ability in the sagittal and transverse planes were measured with clinometers. Contact pressure was measured with pressure-sensitive films.
FINDINGS: T-canalis group provided more sagittal (mean difference for size 10 mm: 1.9°, P = 0.014; mean difference for size 11 mm: 3.1°, P = 0.037) and transverse (mean difference for size 8 mm: 1.8°, P = 0.049; mean difference for size 11 mm: 2.2°, P = 0.049) corrections than T-sinus group. The flattening process shifted the peak pressure of the posterior subtalar joint to the posteromedial side (P < 0.05) and arthroereisis helped the distribution of contact pressure restore uniformity (all P > 0.05).
INTERPRETATION: A self-locking wedge implant inserted in the canalis portion of the tarsal sinus achieved better correction than an implant inserted in the sinus portion.