Literature DB >> 23940203

The GraftLink ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction: biomechanical comparison with the docking technique in both kinematics and failure tests.

Jamie L Lynch1, Matthew A Pifer, Tristan Maerz, Michael D Kurdziel, Abigail A Davidson, Kevin C Baker, Kyle Anderson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction aims to restore valgus stability, and numerous techniques have been described in the literature. HYPOTHESIS/
PURPOSE: To biomechanically compare the GraftLink (GL) technique with traditional bone tunnels used in the docking (DO) technique. It is hypothesized that the GL method will offer a stiffer, less lax construct compared with the DO. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Native and reconstructed states were tested in 7 matched pairs of cadaveric arms. To test kinematics, a 1.5-N·m valgus torque was applied and the resultant displacement at 15° to 90° of flexion was measured. Dissipated energy and the torque at the peak of the 10th cycle of preconditioning were analyzed during kinematic tests. Failure testing was performed by internal rotation of the humerus at 4.5 deg/s in 70° of flexion. Ulnotrochlear joint (UTJ) gapping was quantified during failure tests by use of video tracking.
RESULTS: Kinematics testing revealed no differences between the native state and the reconstructed state in either the DO or the GL group at any flexion angle. Stiffness was lower in the reconstructed specimens in both the DO (39.92 N·m/rad) and GL (50.74 N·m/rad) groups compared with their matched native states (DO Native, 71.41 N·m/rad, P = .005; GL Native, 86.36 N·m/rad, P = .002). There was no difference in stiffness between DO and GL. Reconstructed specimens in the GL group had lower torque at failure compared with native specimens (17.404 N·m vs 24.63 N·m, P = .038), but there was no difference in the DO group at failure. There was no difference in torque at failure between DO and GL. The DO exhibited higher angular displacement at failure compared with the native state (34.21° vs 21.79°, P = .010) and compared with the GL when normalized (1.58-fold vs 1.19-fold, P = .039). Compared with their native states, both DO and GL had significantly higher UTJ gapping at 3 N·m and at failure. The DO had significantly higher normalized UTJ gapping than the GL at 3 N·m (P = .037) and at failure (P = .043).
CONCLUSION: The DO and GL both restored joint kinematics under low loading conditions. Although less stiff, the GL exhibited lower joint gapping and laxity than did the DO. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the biomechanics of UCL reconstruction has significant implications for postoperative management as it relates to early rehabilitation. Biomechanically inferior constructs could risk graft failure or early loosening during rehabilitation, and comparing the biomechanics of new techniques to established, widely used procedures such as the docking technique can provide important information about the immediate postoperative performance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GraftLink; Jobe; TightRope; cortical button; elbow instability; ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23940203     DOI: 10.1177/0363546513498999

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Effect of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction on Pitch Accuracy, Velocity, and Movement in Major League Baseball Pitchers.

Authors:  Braden McKnight; Nathanael D Heckmann; Xiao T Chen; Kevork Hindoyan; J Ryan Hill; Graham Goldbeck; Reza Omid; George F Rick Hatch; Timothy P Charlton
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-12-16

Review 5.  Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction: Anatomy, Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Brandon J Erickson; Joshua D Harris; Peter N Chalmers; Bernard R Bach; Nikhil N Verma; Charles A Bush-Joseph; Anthony A Romeo
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 3.843

6.  Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Versus Repair With Internal Bracing: Comparison of Cyclic Fatigue Mechanics.

Authors:  Christopher M Jones; David P Beason; Jeffrey R Dugas
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-02-16
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.