Literature DB >> 10509275

Tarsal autografts for reconstruction of the scapholunate interosseous ligament: a biomechanical study.

D J Hofstede1, M J Ritt, K E Bos.   

Abstract

A biomechanical cadaver study was performed to identify a potential bone-ligament-bone autograft from the foot for reconstruction of the scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL). In this study the biomechanical properties of 9 dorsal tarsal ligaments and the anterior tibiofibular ligament were investigated and compared with those of the dorsal part of the SLIL. Fifteen fresh-frozen human cadaver feet and 14 fresh-frozen human cadaver wrists were used. In a Monsanto Tensometer testing apparatus (Monsanto Limited Instruments, Dorean Swindon, England) the complexes were uniaxially elongated at a constant velocity of 6.35 mm/min until rupture occurred. The stiffness and strength values for each tarsal ligament were calculated and compared with those of the dorsal part of the SL ligament. Analysis indicated that the third dorsal tarsometatarsal ligament (143 +/- 42 N) and the dorsal calcaneocuboid ligament (149 +/- 41 N) were comparable to the dorsal part of the SL ligament (141 +/- 20 N) while all other ligaments were stronger. The stiffness values of the third dorsal tarsometatarsal ligament (67 +/- 17 N/mm) and the dorsal calcaneocuboid ligament (55 +/- 14 N/mm) were comparable to the dorsal part of the SL ligament (61 +/- 6 N/mm). All the other ligaments had values that were higher than the dorsal part of the SL ligament. The strongest ligament appeared to be the medial dorsal cuneonavicular ligament (479 +/- 65 N), which had a stiffness value of 127 +/- 19 N/mm. Although the third dorsal tarsometatarsal ligament and the dorsal calcaneocuboid ligament are biomechanically most similar to the dorsal part of the SLIL, at present it is unclear how strength and stiffness values of ligaments are sustained following transplantation. From this selection of tarsal ligaments, the medial dorsal cuneonavicular ligament is the strongest ligament and it is therefore concluded that this ligament is the most suitable ligament to be used as an autograft for reconstruction of the SLIL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10509275     DOI: 10.1053/jhsu.1999.0968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hand Surg Am        ISSN: 0363-5023            Impact factor:   2.230


  8 in total

1.  [New bone-ligament-bone transplant from plantar plates of the toes and possible use in reconstruction of the scapholunate ligament. An anatomical study].

Authors:  M Reik; G Germann; M Sauerbier; M Müller
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  [Treatment of chronic scapholunate dissociation using Cuénod's bone-ligament-bone autograft].

Authors:  Karlheinz Kalb; Karl-Josef Prommersberger
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.154

3.  Current role of open reconstruction of the scapholunate ligament.

Authors:  Riccardo Luchetti; Andrea Atzei; Roberto Cozzolino; Tracy Fairplay
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2013-05

4.  Design Requirements for Scapholunate Interosseous Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Frederick W Werner
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2021-05-01

5.  Reconstruction of the Scapholunate Ligament Using Capitohamate Bone-Ligament-Bone.

Authors:  Toshiyasu Nakamura; Koji Abe; Takuji Iwamoto; Kensuke Ochi; Kazuki Sato
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2015-11

6.  Outcomes of Capitohamate Bone-Ligament-Bone Grafts for Scapholunate Injury.

Authors:  Robert J van Kampen; Christopher O Bayne; Steven L Moran; Richard A Berger
Journal:  J Wrist Surg       Date:  2015-11

7.  Biomechanical Properties of First Dorsal Extensor Compartment Regarding Adequacy as a Bone-Ligament-Bone Graft.

Authors:  Michael G Jakubietz; Rafael G Jakubietz; Rainer H Meffert; Karsten Schmidt; Robert K Zahn
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-07-26

8.  Finite element analysis of the performance of additively manufactured scaffolds for scapholunate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Nataliya Perevoshchikova; Kevin M Moerman; Bardiya Akhbari; Randy Bindra; Jayishni N Maharaj; David G Lloyd; Maria Gomez Cerezo; Amelia Carr; Cedryck Vaquette; David J Saxby
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.