| Literature DB >> 30116383 |
Xiaozuo Zheng1,2, Wei Xu1,3, Juyuan Gu1,2, Yang Hu4, Meijuan Cui5, Yu-E Feng1, Shijun Gao1,2.
Abstract
Preconditioning of the grafts prior to implantation into the knee is considered to reduce the loss of tension caused by graft viscoelasticity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The present study analyzed the impacts of different preconditioning forces on the biomechanical properties of the γ-irradiated deep frozen tendon allografts. A total of 36 tendon grafts were randomly divided into three groups and were preconditioned at 80 N (group 1), 160 N (group 2) and 320 N (group 3) for 10 min. Subsequently, the grafts were gradually completely relaxed for 1 min and subsequently received 25 cyclic loads of 0-80 N. Afterwards, the grafts were loaded to 80 N, which was maintained for 30 min. Finally, load was gradually increased until ultimate failure at maximum load (UFML) was obtained. There were significant differences in the stiffness and UFML values between the 3 groups (all P<0.05). The graft stiffness in group 3 significantly increased compared with the other 2 groups, and the stiffness of group 2 grafts increased compared with group 1. The UFML in group 3 was significantly lower compared with groups 1 and 2, while there was no significant difference between groups 1 and 2. In the present study, the results suggested that increasing the initial tension could effectively reduce the loss of stiffness due to viscoelasticity for the γ-irradiated deep frozen allogeneic tendon grafts. However, overloaded initial tension decreased the tensile strength.Entities:
Keywords: allograft; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; graft preconditioning; mechanics; tendons
Year: 2018 PMID: 30116383 PMCID: PMC6090265 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2018.6338
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1.γ-irradiated deep frozen tendon grafts. Arrows indicating tested graft. Grafts were clamped to the actuator after being whipstitched.
Figure 2.Schematic diagram of the loading profile for each graft tested. UFML, ultimate failure at maximum load.
Figure 3.Stiffness of the grafts following different preconditioning protocols. *P<0.05 vs. group 2; †P<0.05 vs. group 3; §P<0.05 vs. group 1.
Figure 4.UFML of the grafts following different preconditioning protocols. †P<0.05 vs. group 3; §P<0.05 vs. group 1. UFML, ultimate failure at maximum load.