Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
Flexor digitorum longus tendon transfer to the navicular: tendon-to-tendon repair is stronger compared with interference screw fixation.
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.
Marsland Daniel, Stephen Joanna M, Calder Toby, Amis Andrew A, Calder James D F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess whether early rehabilitation could be safe after flexor digitorum longus (FDL) tendon transfer, the current biomechanical study aimed to measure tendon displacement under cyclic loading and load to failure, comparing a traditional tendon-to-tendon (TT) repair with interference screw fixation (ISF).
METHODS: 24 fresh-frozen cadaveric below knee specimens underwent FDL tendon transfer. In 12 specimens a TT repair was performed via a navicular bone tunnel. In a further 12 specimens ISF was performed. Using a materials testing machine, the FDL tendon was cycled 1000 times to 150 N and tendon displacement at the insertion site measured. A final load to failure test was then performed. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and an independent t test, with a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULT: No significant difference in tendon displacement occurred after cyclic loading, with mean tendon displacements of 1.9 ± 1.2 mm (mean ± SD) in the TT group and 1.8 ± 1.5 mm in the ISF group (n.s.). Two early failures occurred in the ISF group, none in the TT group. Mean load to failure was significantly greater following TT repair (459 ± 96 N), compared with ISF (327 ± 76 N), p = 0.002.
CONCLUSION: Minimal tendon displacement of less than 2 mm occurred during cyclic testing in both groups. The two premature failures and significantly reduced load to failure observed in the ISF group, however, indicate that the traditional TT technique is more robust. Regarding clinical relevance, this study suggests that early active range of motion and protected weight bearing may be safe following FDL tendon transfer for stage 2 tibialis posterior tendon dysfunction.
METHODS: 24 fresh-frozen cadaveric below knee specimens underwent FDL tendon transfer. In 12 specimens a TT repair was performed via a navicular bone tunnel. In a further 12 specimens ISF was performed. Using a materials testing machine, the FDL tendon was cycled 1000 times to 150 N and tendon displacement at the insertion site measured. A final load to failure test was then performed. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and an independent t test, with a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULT: No significant difference in tendon displacement occurred after cyclic loading, with mean tendon displacements of 1.9 ± 1.2 mm (mean ± SD) in the TT group and 1.8 ± 1.5 mm in the ISF group (n.s.). Two early failures occurred in the ISF group, none in the TT group. Mean load to failure was significantly greater following TT repair (459 ± 96 N), compared with ISF (327 ± 76 N), p = 0.002.
CONCLUSION: Minimal tendon displacement of less than 2 mm occurred during cyclic testing in both groups. The two premature failures and significantly reduced load to failure observed in the ISF group, however, indicate that the traditional TT technique is more robust. Regarding clinical relevance, this study suggests that early active range of motion and protected weight bearing may be safe following FDL tendon transfer for stage 2 tibialis posterior tendon dysfunction.