| Literature DB >> 26001045 |
Yu-Shu Lai1, Wen-Chuan Chen1, Chang-Hung Huang2, Cheng-Kung Cheng3, Kam-Kong Chan4, Ting-Kuo Chang5.
Abstract
Surgical reconstruction is generally recommended for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries; however, the use of grafts is still a controversial problem. In this study, a three-dimensional finite element model of the human tibiofemoral joint with articular cartilage layers, menisci, and four main ligaments was constructed to investigate the effects of graft strengths on knee kinematics and in-situ forces of PCL grafts. Nine different graft strengths with stiffness ranging from 0% (PCL rupture) to 200%, in increments of 25%, of an intact PCL's strength were used to simulate the PCL reconstruction. A 100 N posterior tibial drawer load was applied to the knee joint at full extension. Results revealed that the maximum posterior translation of the PCL rupture model (0% stiffness) was 6.77 mm in the medial compartment, which resulted in tibial internal rotation of about 3.01°. After PCL reconstruction with any graft strength, the laxity of the medial tibial compartment was noticeably improved. Tibial translation and rotation were similar to the intact knee after PCL reconstruction with graft strengths ranging from 75% to 125% of an intact PCL. When the graft's strength surpassed 150%, the medial tibia moved forward and external tibial rotation greatly increased. The in-situ forces generated in the PCL grafts ranged from 13.15 N to 75.82 N, depending on the stiffness. In conclusion, the strength of PCL grafts have has a noticeable effect on anterior-posterior translation of the medial tibial compartment and its in-situ force. Similar kinematic response may happen in the models when the PCL graft's strength lies between 75% and 125% of an intact PCL.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26001045 PMCID: PMC4441446 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Finite element model of human knee including the femur, tibia, fibula, articular cartilage layers, menisci, and four main ligaments.
The mean contact pressure in medial and lateral tibial cartilage and meniscus at 890 N for the six finite element mesh densities.
| Element Size (mm) | Medial side | Lateral side | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Pressure (MPa) | Different Rate (%) | Mean Pressure (MPa) | Different Rate (%) | |
| 6 mm by 6 mm | 2.01 | 36.73 | 1.52 | 24.59 |
| 5 mm by 5 mm | 1.82 | 23.81 | 1.39 | 13.93 |
| 4 mm by 4 mm | 1.66 | 12.93 | 1.32 | 8.20 |
| 3 mm by 3 mm | 1.55 | 5.44 | 1.24 | 1.64 |
| 2 mm by 2 mm | 1.49 | 1.36 | 1.22 | 0 |
| 1 mm by 1 mm | 1.47 | 0 | 1.22 | 0 |
The differences in mean contact pressure were below 5% for the 2 mm2 mesh density
*Different Rate = [(The mean pressure of any one element size)-(The mean pressure of 1 mm by 1 mm)]/ (The mean pressure of 1 mm by 1 mm)
The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of cortical bone, cancellous bone, cartilage, meniscus and four ligaments.
| Elastic modulus | Poisson’s ratio | |
|---|---|---|
| Cortical Bone | 17 GPa | 0.3 |
| Cancellous Bone | 350 MPa | 0.25 |
| Cartilage | 12 MPa | 0.45 |
| Meniscus Matrix | 10 MPa | 0.45 |
| Meniscus Horn | 15 MPa | 0.45 |
| Anterior Cruciate Ligament | 366 MPa | — |
| AL bundle of Posterior Cruciate Ligament | 165 MPa | — |
| PM bundle of Posterior Cruciate Ligament | 98 MPa | — |
| Medial Collateral Ligament | 366 MPa | — |
| Lateral Collateral Ligament | 366 MPa | — |
Fig 2Anterior-posterior translations of medial and lateral tibial compartments in the reconstructed knee joint with different graft strengths.
The anterior-posterior translations of the medial tibial compartment are noticeably affected by the graft strength.
Fig 3Tibial rotations in the reconstructed knee joint with different graft strengths.
Internal tibial rotation occurred in the PCL fully-ruptured knee model. In all PCL reconstruction cases the tibia rotated externally.
Fig 4The in-situ forces in the grafts with different strengths under a 100 N posterior tibial force.
The in-situ forces and graft strengths represented a proportional relationship.