Literature DB >> 12098119

A biomechanical evaluation of anterior and posterior tibialis tendons as suitable single-loop anterior cruciate ligament grafts.

Tammy L Haut Donahue1, Stephen M Howell, Maury L Hull, Colin Gregersen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Because allograft tendons used to replace a torn anterior cruciate ligament are in short supply, it is useful to explore other possible graft sources. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a graft formed from a loop of either an anterior or posterior tibialis tendon has structural, material, and viscoelastic properties similar to those of a double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis (DLSTG) graft. TYPE OF STUDY: Completely randomized design.
METHODS: Four structural and 3 material properties were determined for each type of graft (n = 10) by measuring the cross-sectional area, looping the tendon(s) over a post, gripping the free ends of the tendon(s) with a freeze clamp, and pulling the graft to failure by using a materials testing system. Two viscoelastic properties were determined for each type of graft (n = 10) by measuring the decrease in load under a constant displacement (i.e., stress relaxation test) and the increase in displacement under a constant load (i.e., creep test).
RESULTS: For grafts 95 mm in length, the ultimate load and ultimate displacement of a loop of anterior (4,122 N, 12.0 mm) and posterior tibialis (3,594 N, 12.5 mm) tendon were either similar to or significantly greater than those of the DLSTG graft (2,913 N, 8.4 mm) (P =.204 for the posterior tibialis ultimate load and P < or =.007 for the remaining quantities). The stiffness and cross-sectional area of the anterior (460 N/mm, 48.2 mm2) and posterior tibialis (379 N/mm, 41.9 mm2) grafts were similar to those of the DLSTG graft (418 N/mm, 44.4 mm2) (P > or =.283). The tensile modulus, stress at ultimate load, and strain at ultimate load of the anterior tibialis and posterior tibialis grafts were either similar to or significantly greater than those of the DLSTG graft. The decrease in load of the anterior tibialis and posterior tibialis grafts was either greater than or similar to that of the DLSTG graft for the relaxation test (P < or =.066). The increase in displacement of the anterior tibialis (0.3 mm) and posterior tibialis (0.4 mm) grafts was minimally but significantly greater than that of the DLSTG graft (0.2 mm) for the creep test (P < or =.004).
CONCLUSIONS: The structural, material, and viscoelastic properties of a single loop of anterior tibialis and posterior tibialis tendon are either better than or similar to those of a DLSTG graft. Consequently, single-loop grafts formed from tibialis tendons should function well as a replacement for a torn anterior cruciate ligament.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12098119     DOI: 10.1053/jars.2002.32617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  22 in total

1.  Two-year outcomes following ACL reconstruction with allograft tibialis anterior tendons: a retrospective study.

Authors:  J Nyland; D N M Caborn; J Rothbauer; Y Kocabey; J Couch
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Emerging ideas: soft tissue applications of radiostereometric analysis.

Authors:  Lucian B Solomon; Stuart A Callary
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Consideration of growth factors and bio-scaffolds for treatment of combined grade II MCL and ACL injury.

Authors:  Natasha Anoka; John Nyland; Mark McGinnis; Dave Lee; Mahmut Nedim Doral; David N M Caborn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  A Finite Element Analysis of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Nicole A DeVries Watson; Kyle R Duchman; Matthew J Bollier; Nicole M Grosland
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2015

5.  Biomechanical and tissue handling property comparison of decellularized and cryopreserved tibialis anterior tendons following extreme incubation and rehydration.

Authors:  J Nyland; N Larsen; R Burden; H Chang; D N M Caborn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  [Allografts for cruciate ligament reconstruction].

Authors:  S Buchmann; V Musahl; A B Imhoff; P U Brucker
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Knee flexor strength after ACL reconstruction: comparison between hamstring autograft, tibialis anterior allograft, and non-injured controls.

Authors:  Sarah Landes; John Nyland; Brian Elmlinger; Ed Tillett; David Caborn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-11-07       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 8.  What Factors Influence the Biomechanical Properties of Allograft Tissue for ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Drew A Lansdown; Andrew J Riff; Molly Meadows; Adam B Yanke; Bernard R Bach
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  A Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACL-R) Using Hamstring Tendon Autograft and Tibialis Anterior Tendon Allograft: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Saroj Rai; Sheng-Yang Jin; Bimal Rai; Nira Tamang; Wei Huang; Xian-Zhe Liu; Chun-Qing Meng; Hong Wang
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2018-10-20

10.  Tibial fixation comparison of semitendinosus-bone composite allografts fixed with bioabsorbable screws and bone-patella tendon-bone grafts fixed with titanium screws.

Authors:  Y Kocabey; S Klein; J Nyland; D Caborn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2003-07-04       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.