Literature DB >> 20620797

Biomechanical comparison of figure-of-8 versus cylindrical tibial inlay constructs for arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Ramon A Ruberte Thiele1, Robert Brick Campbell, Annunziato Amendola, Jon K Sekiya.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the biomechanical strength of Achilles tendon allografts with 2 different bone plug configurations as prepared for arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction when fixed as tibial inlay constructs.
METHODS: Nine matched pairs of cadaveric tibias were reconstructed by a standardized tibial inlay technique by use of either a cylindrical bone plug (12 mm in diameter) or a figure-of-8 bone plug (12 x 18 mm). Constructs were subjected to cyclic tensile loading followed by load to failure. The statistical analysis consisted of paired t tests with significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found in yield load, ultimate load, stiffness, load at 5 mm, and total cyclic displacement between the groups. Although both constructs showed equivalent biomechanical properties, the tendons of the cylindrical bone plugs failed predominantly by shear off the bone compared with the figure-of-8 plugs, which failed by the sutures tearing through the tibial plateau.
CONCLUSIONS: Tibial constructs with cylindrical and figure-of-8 bone plugs as prepared for use in arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have comparable immediate biomechanical stability when fixed by a tibial inlay technique in a cadaveric model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cylindrical and figure-of-8 bone plugs have comparable immediate biomechanical stability when fixed by a tibial inlay method, with the cylindrical technique being potentially technically easier to perform. Copyright (c) 2010 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20620797     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.11.006

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


  7 in total

1.  Biomechanical properties of femoral posterior cruciate ligament fixations.

Authors:  M Ettinger; M Petri; K T Haag; S Brand; A Dratzidis; C Hurschler; C Krettek; M Jagodzinski
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  All-Inside Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With a GraftLink.

Authors:  Gerard G Adler
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-03-29

3.  Is the all-arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle PCL reconstruction a viable option in multiligament knee injuries?

Authors:  Alexander E Weber; Benjamin Bissell; Edward M Wojtys; Jon K Sekiya
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  TransMedial All-Inside Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Reinforced Tibial Inlay Graft.

Authors:  Tamara J Nancoo; Breck Lord; Sam K Yasen; James O Smith; Michael J Risebury; Adrian J Wilson
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-10-07

5.  The fixation strength of tibial PCL press-fit reconstructions.

Authors:  M Ettinger; T Wehrhahn; M Petri; E Liodakis; G Olender; U-V Albrecht; C Hurschler; C Krettek; M Jagodzinski
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Comparison of the operation of arthroscopic tibial inlay and traditional tibial inlay for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Daifeng Lu; Mochao Xiao; Yongyun Lian; Yong Zhou; Xuefeng Liu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-10-15

7.  Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction: a surgical technique that may influence rehabilitation.

Authors:  Michael J Salata; Jon K Sekiya
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.843

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.