Literature DB >> 25703286

Impact of Hamstring Graft Diameter on Tendon Strength: A Biomechanical Study.

Michael R Boniello1, Paul M Schwingler1, Justin M Bonner2, Samuel P Robinson2, Andrew Cotter3, Kevin F Bonner4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the tensile strength of hamstring grafts of varying combined pull-through diameters within the clinically relevant range of 6 to 9 mm.
METHODS: We tested 44 non-irradiated allograft hamstring grafts (11 per group). Combined looped semitendinosus and gracilis grafts were allocated to the 6-, 7-, 8-, or 9-mm group based on the smallest-diameter lumen that the graft could be "pulled through" using a surgical sizing instrument. Testing was performed on an Instron materials testing machine (Instron, Norwood, MA). Samples were secured with cryoclamps, prestressed, and pulled to failure at a rate of 10% gauge length per second.
RESULTS: The mean load to failure was 2,359 ± 474 N, 3,263 ± 677 N, 3,908 ± 556 N, and 4,360 ± 606 N for the 6-, 7-, 8-, and 9-mm grafts, respectively. Minimum failure loads were as low as 1,567 N, 2,288 N, 2,874 N, and 3,720 N for each group, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the 6- and 7-mm, 6- and 8-mm, 6- and 9-mm, and 7- and 9-mm groups (P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Statistically different increasing tensile strength was seen as graft diameter increased. Significant variability exists in the strength of multi-stranded hamstring allografts within the diameter range of 6 to 9 mm that often falls well below the commonly accepted value of 4,000 N for a hamstring graft. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Recent evidence suggests a higher early failure rate of hamstring autografts in subsets of patients with graft diameters of 8 mm or less. This study may increase awareness that hamstring grafts may not be nearly as strong as previously appreciated and that increasing tendon diameters by 1 to 2 mm may dramatically affect graft strength. These data may be helpful in preoperative discussions regarding variable hamstring size, strength, and potential intraoperative augmentation options.
Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25703286     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.023

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


  24 in total

1.  Small hamstring autograft is defined by a cut-off diameter of 7 mm and not recommended with allograft augmentation in single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Huijun Kang; Conglei Dong; Fei Wang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  What Factors Influence the Biomechanical Properties of Allograft Tissue for ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Drew A Lansdown; Andrew J Riff; Molly Meadows; Adam B Yanke; Bernard R Bach
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Using pre-operative MRI to predict intraoperative hamstring graft size for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Jeff Leiter; Mohamed Elkurbo; Sheila McRae; James Chiu; Warren Froese; Peter MacDonald
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Area of the tibial insertion site of the anterior cruciate ligament as a predictor for graft size.

Authors:  Daniel Guenther; Sebastian Irarrázaval; Marcio Albers; Cara Vernacchia; James J Irrgang; Volker Musahl; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  In situ cross-sectional area of the quadriceps tendon using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging significantly correlates with the intraoperative diameter of the quadriceps tendon autograft.

Authors:  Satoshi Takeuchi; Benjamin B Rothrauff; Masashi Taguchi; Ryo Kanto; Kentaro Onishi; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  A Biomechanical Comparison of Alternative Graft Preparations for All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Meghan W Richardson; Nicholas D Tsouris; Chaudry R Hassan; Justen H Elbayar; Yi-Xian Qin; David E Komatsu; Angelo V Rizzi; James M Paci
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  The gracilis and semitendinosus muscles: a morphometric study on 18 specimens with clinical implications.

Authors:  Chahine Assi; Francois Bonnel; Jad Mansour; Jimmy Daher; Bassam Gerges; Alfred Khoury; Kaissar Yammine
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 1.246

8.  Preoperative ultrasound predicts the intraoperative diameter of the quadriceps tendon autograft more accurately than preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Satoshi Takeuchi; Benjamin B Rothrauff; Masashi Taguchi; Kentaro Onishi; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Clinical outcome of a new remnant augmentation technique with anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparison among remnant preservation, resection, and absent groups.

Authors:  Tomoya Iwaasa; Keiji Tensho; Suguru Koyama; Hiroki Shimodaira; Hiroshi Horiuchi; Naoto Saito; Jun Takahashi
Journal:  Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol       Date:  2021-05-26

10.  Remnant Muscle Preservation on Hamstring Tendon Autograft During ACL Reconstruction Promotes Volumetric Increase With Biological and Regenerative Potential.

Authors:  Luis Fernando Z Funchal; Rafael Ortiz; Andrew Jimenez; Gabriella Di Giunta Funchal; Moises Cohen; Diego Costa Astur
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-03-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.