| Literature DB >> 18826583 |
Naiquan Zheng1, Brent R Davis, James R Andrews.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of thermal shrinkage on the medial parapatellar capsule for treating recurrent patellar dislocation is controversial. One of reasons why it is still controversial is that the effectiveness is still qualitatively measured. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively determine the immediate effectiveness of the medial parapatellar capsule shrinkage as in clinical setting.Entities:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18826583 PMCID: PMC2569921 DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-3-45
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Figure 1Test set-up. A LVDT translation sensor was mounted on the lateral side and a force sensor was mounted on an adaptor to apply compressive force from the medial side of the patella.
Figure 2Test set-up for healthy subjects. A LVDT translation sensor was mounted on the lateral side and a force sensor was mounted on an adaptor to apply compressive force from the medial side of the patella.
Figure 3Thermal energy was applied in a paint-brush fashion medially from patella on the inner surface of the medial parapatellar capsule.
Force, displacement and stiffness for healthy subjects (mean ± standard deviation)
| Gender | Force (N) | Displacement (mm) | Stiffness (N/mm) |
| Male | 19.5 ± 4.8 | 10.5 ± 4.0 | 2.16 ± 0.98 |
| Female | 15.2 ± 4.0 | 10.9 ± 3.8 | 1.59 ± 0.77 |
Force, displacement and stiffness of left and right knees by gender (mean ± standard deviation)
| Gender | Knee | Force (N) | Displacement (mm) | Stiffness (N/mm) |
| Male | Left | 17.4 ± 4.6 | 10.9 ± 4.2 | 2.04 ± 0.93 |
| Right | 21.6 ± 4.7 | 10.5 ± 4.3 | 2.29 ± 1.16 | |
| Female | Left | 15.8 ± 4.6 | 10.9 ± 4.4 | 1.74 ± 0.98 |
| Right | 14.4 ± 3.8 | 10.8 ± 2.5 | 1.44 ± 0.89 | |
Figure 4A typical loading and unloading curve. Y axis is the displacement in mm and X axis is the force applied in % of the maximum reading calibrated.
Force, displacement and stiffness (mean ± standard deviation)
| Group | Force (N) | Displacement (mm) | Stiffness (N/mm) |
| Healthy subjects | 17.6 ± 4.8 | 10.7 ± 3.7 | 1.91 ± 0.92 |
| Cadaver before thermal shrinkage | 23.2 ± 4.5 | 10.5 ± 1.9 | 2.27 ± 0.54 |
| Cadaver after thermal shrinkage | 22.9 ± 3.2 | 10.9 ± 1.9 | 2.15 ± 0.43 |
| Cadaver after open surgery | 25.3 ± 3.9 | 5.7 ± 1.9 | 5.10 ± 2.53 |