Literature DB >> 15789016

A biomechanical comparison of four reconstruction techniques for the medial collateral ligament-deficient elbow.

April D Armstrong1, Cynthia E Dunning, Louis M Ferreira, Kenneth J Faber, James A Johnson, Graham J W King.   

Abstract

The initial strength of the intact medial collateral ligament (MCL) of the elbow and the strength of 4 reconstruction techniques were compared. Twenty cadaveric upper extremities were mounted in a custom jig with the elbow at 90 degrees , and a pneumatic cyclic valgus loading protocol was used. The mean peak load to failure was 142.5+/-39.4 N for the intact ligaments and 53.0+/-9.5 N for the docking reconstructions, 52.5+/-10.4 N for the EndoButton reconstructions, 41.0+/-16.0 N for the interference screw reconstructions, and 33.3+/-7.1 N for the figure-eight reconstructions. The peak load to failure of the MCL reconstructions was inferior compared with the intact ligament (P<.001). No difference in strength was found between the docking and single-strand medial collateral reconstruction with the use of an EndoButton for ulnar fixation (P>.05, beta=.14). Both of these reconstruction methods were stronger than the interference screw or figure-eight technique (P<.004). The optimal fixation method for a single-strand MCL reconstruction may require improved interference screws or a modified EndoButton procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15789016     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.06.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  11 in total

Review 1.  Evolution of the treatment options of ulnar collateral ligament injuries of the elbow.

Authors:  P Langer; P Fadale; M Hulstyn
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2006-02-17       Impact factor: 13.800

2.  Modified Jobe Approach With Docking Technique for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Daniel J Kaplan; Sergio A Glait; William E Ryan; Laith M Jazrawi
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-11-21

3.  Modified subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Authors:  Hatem G Said; AbdulRahman A Babaqi; Aly Mohamadean; Ahmed H Khater; Mohamed H Sobhy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  State of the Union on Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in 2020: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Cort D Lawton; Joseph D Lamplot; Joshua I Wright-Chisem; Evan W James; Christopher L Camp; Joshua S Dines
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2020-06

Review 5.  The History and Evolution of Elbow Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction: from Tommy John to 2020.

Authors:  Andrew R Jensen; Matthew D LaPrade; Travis W Turner; Joshua S Dines; Christopher L Camp
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2020-06

6.  Outcomes following surgical management of complex terrible triad injuries of the elbow: a single surgeon case series.

Authors:  Peter Domos; Emmet Griffiths; Andrew White
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2017-06-13

7.  Current concepts in rehabilitation following ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Todd S Ellenbecker; Kevin E Wilk; David W Altchek; James R Andrews
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.843

Review 8.  Comparison of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Techniques in the Elbow of Sports Players.

Authors:  Jun-Gyu Moon; Hee-Dong Lee
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2020-02-28

9.  Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction With the Modified Jobe Technique in Baseball Pitchers.

Authors:  Masahito Yoshida; Tetsuya Takenaga; Satoshi Takeuchi; Keishi Takaba; Atsushi Tsuchiya; Masaki Fukuyoshi; Hiroki Nakagawa; Yuji Matsumoto; Masayoshi Saito; Hidenori Futamura; Ryo Futamura; Hideki Murakami; Katsumasa Sugimoto
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-04-27

10.  Effect of Anconeus Muscle Blocking on Elbow Kinematics: Electromyographic, Inertial Sensors and Finite Element Study.

Authors:  Israel Miguel-Andres; Teresa Alonso-Rasgado; Alan Walmsley; Adam C Watts
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 3.934

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.