Literature DB >> 16861581

Biomechanical evaluation of 2 techniques for ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction of the elbow.

George A Paletta1, Steven J Klepps, Gregory S Difelice, Tracy Allen, Michael D Brodt, Meghan E Burns, Matthew J Silva, Rick W Wright.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament tears often result in pain and instability that may be career threatening in overhead-throwing athletes. Surgical reconstruction is frequently chosen to treat this injury. Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction as described by Jobe is the most commonly used technique. Testing of this construct has not demonstrated that the biomechanical parameters of the native ligament are restored. A more recent construct, the docking technique, may more reliably reproduce these factors. HYPOTHESIS: Increasing the number of strands of palmaris longus tendon graft used in ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction and tensioning them using the docking technique result in a construct with improved biomechanical parameters as compared with the Jobe technique. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Thirty-three fresh-frozen human cadaveric elbows were randomized into 3 subgroups: Jobe (11), docking (12), and native (10). The Jobe and docking groups underwent reconstruction using their described palmaris tendon graft constructs. The ulnar collateral ligament was left intact in the native group. Elbows were potted and tested using a servohydraulic materials testing machine to apply a valgus moment at 30 degrees of elbow flexion. Maximal moments to failure, stiffness, and strain at maximal moment and with a 3 N.m force applied were determined using a 2-camera motion analysis system to track reflective markers spanning the site.
RESULTS: The docking (14.3 N.m) and native (18.8 N.m) subgroups resulted in higher maximal moment to failure than did the Jobe (8.9 N.m) subgroup (P < .001). There was no significant difference between native and docking groups (P > .05). Native ligaments were stiffer (301.4 N.m) than were Jobe (74.3 N.m) or docking (80.8 N.m; P < .001). Native ligaments demonstrated lower strain at maximal force (0.087 mm/mm) and 3 N.m forces (0.030 mm/mm) than did the Jobe (0.198/0.057 mm/mm) or docking (0.287/0.042 mm/mm) subgroups. There was no difference in stiffness or strain between the Jobe and docking subgroups (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: Neither technique reproduced the biomechanical profile of the native ulnar collateral ligament; the findings of this study suggest that the docking construct may offer initial biomechanical advantage over the Jobe construct.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16861581     DOI: 10.1177/0363546506289340

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  12 in total

1.  Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction with allograft: is it a home run?

Authors:  Matthew V Smith
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Biomechanical testing of the reconstructed ulnar collateral ligament: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  B M Saltzman; B J Erickson; J M Frank; J D Harris; G P Nicholson; B R Bach; N N Verma; A A Romeo
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2016-09-14

Review 3.  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 4.  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

5.  Medial elbow injury in young throwing athletes.

Authors:  Bonnie Gregory; John Nyland
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2013-07-09

6.  Revision Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in Professional Baseball: Current Trends, Surgical Techniques, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Christopher L Camp; Vishal Desai; Stan Conte; Christopher S Ahmad; Michael Ciccotti; Joshua S Dines; David W Altchek; John D'Angelo; Timothy B Griffith
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-08-14

7.  Reconstruction of the Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament of the Elbow: Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Anatomic Technique to the Docking Technique.

Authors:  Christopher L Camp; Christopher Bernard; Bill Benavitz; John Konicek; David W Altchek; Joshua S Dines
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-07-17

Review 8.  Optimal management of ulnar collateral ligament injury in baseball pitchers.

Authors:  Elizabeth E Hibberd; J Rodney Brown; Joseph T Hoffer
Journal:  Open Access J Sports Med       Date:  2015-11-11

9.  Osseous Vascularity of the Medial Elbow After Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of the Docking and Modified Jobe Techniques.

Authors:  Christopher L Camp; Craig E Klinger; Lionel E Lazaro; Jordan C Villa; Jelle P van der List; David W Altchek; Dean G Lorich; Joshua S Dines
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-04-02

10.  Biomechanical Evaluation of a Modified Internal Brace Construct for the Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries.

Authors:  Ekaterina Urch; Orr Limpisvasti; Neal S ElAttrache; Yasuo Itami; Michelle H McGarry; Christos D Photopoulos; Thay Q Lee
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-10-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.