Roy A G Hoogeslag1, Reinoud W Brouwer2, Rianne Huis In 't Veld3, Joanna M Stephen4,5, Andrew A Amis4,6. 1. Centre for Orthopaedic Surgery OCON, Hengelo, The Netherlands. hoogeslag@me.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Centre for Orthopaedic Surgery OCON, Hengelo, The Netherlands. 4. Biomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Fortius Clinic, Fitzhardinge Street, London, UK. 6. Musculoskeletal Surgery Lab, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London School of Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a lack of objective evidence investigating how previous non-augmented ACL suture repair techniques and contemporary augmentation techniques in ACL suture repair restrain anterior tibial translation (ATT) across the arc of flexion, and after cyclic loading of the knee. The purpose of this work was to test the null hypotheses that there would be no statistically significant difference in ATT after non-, static- and dynamic-augmented ACL suture repair, and they will not restore ATT to normal values across the arc of flexion of the knee after cyclic loading. METHODS: Eleven human cadaveric knees were mounted in a test rig, and knee kinematics from 0° to 90° of flexion were recorded by use of an optical tracking system. Measurements were recorded without load and with 89-N tibial anterior force. The knees were tested in the following states: ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, non-augmented suture repair, static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation after 10 and 300 loading cycles. RESULTS: Only static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation restored ATT to values similar to the ACL-intact state directly postoperation, and maintained this after cyclic loading. However, contrary to dynamic augmentation, the ATT after static tape augmentation failed to remain statistically less than for the ACL-deficient state after cyclic loading. Moreover, after cyclic loading, ATT was significantly less with dynamic augmentation when compared to static tape augmentation. CONCLUSION: In contrast to non-augmented ACL suture repair and static tape augmentation, only dynamic augmentation resulted in restoration of ATT values similar to the ACL-intact knee and decreased ATT values when compared to the ACL-deficient knee immediately post-operation and also after cyclic loading, across the arc of flexion, thus allowing the null hypotheses to be rejected. This may assist healing of the ruptured ACL. Therefore, this study would support further clinical evaluation of dynamic augmentation of ACL repair.
PURPOSE: There is a lack of objective evidence investigating how previous non-augmented ACL suture repair techniques and contemporary augmentation techniques in ACL suture repair restrain anterior tibial translation (ATT) across the arc of flexion, and after cyclic loading of the knee. The purpose of this work was to test the null hypotheses that there would be no statistically significant difference in ATT after non-, static- and dynamic-augmented ACL suture repair, and they will not restore ATT to normal values across the arc of flexion of the knee after cyclic loading. METHODS: Eleven human cadaveric knees were mounted in a test rig, and knee kinematics from 0° to 90° of flexion were recorded by use of an optical tracking system. Measurements were recorded without load and with 89-N tibial anterior force. The knees were tested in the following states: ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, non-augmented suture repair, static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation after 10 and 300 loading cycles. RESULTS: Only static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation restored ATT to values similar to the ACL-intact state directly postoperation, and maintained this after cyclic loading. However, contrary to dynamic augmentation, the ATT after static tape augmentation failed to remain statistically less than for the ACL-deficient state after cyclic loading. Moreover, after cyclic loading, ATT was significantly less with dynamic augmentation when compared to static tape augmentation. CONCLUSION: In contrast to non-augmented ACL suture repair and static tape augmentation, only dynamic augmentation resulted in restoration of ATT values similar to the ACL-intact knee and decreased ATT values when compared to the ACL-deficient knee immediately post-operation and also after cyclic loading, across the arc of flexion, thus allowing the null hypotheses to be rejected. This may assist healing of the ruptured ACL. Therefore, this study would support further clinical evaluation of dynamic augmentation of ACL repair.
Authors: Joanna M Stephen; Camilla Halewood; Christoph Kittl; Steve R Bollen; Andy Williams; Andrew A Amis Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Martha M Murray; Kurt P Spindler; Eduardo Abreu; John A Muller; Arthur Nedder; Mark Kelly; John Frino; David Zurakowski; Maria Valenza; Brian D Snyder; Susan A Connolly Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Patrick Vavken; Braden C Fleming; Ashley N Mastrangelo; Jason T Machan; Martha M Murray Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Martha M Murray; Brett M Flutie; Leslie A Kalish; Kirsten Ecklund; Braden C Fleming; Benedikt L Proffen; Lyle J Micheli Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2016-11-21
Authors: Janosch Häberli; Benjamin Voumard; Clemens Kösters; Daniel Delfosse; Philipp Henle; Stefan Eggli; Philippe Zysset Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Samuel Bachmaier; Gregory S DiFelice; Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet; Wiemi A Douoguih; Patrick A Smith; Lee J Pace; Daniel Ritter; Coen A Wijdicks Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-01-28