| Literature DB >> 32099804 |
Muzhi Li1,2,3, Yifu Tang1,2,3, Can Chen1,2,3, Jiefu Zhou1,2,3, Cheng Zheng4, Huabin Chen1,2,3, Hongbin Lu1,2,3, Jin Qu1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many orthopedic surgical procedures involve reattachment between tendon and bone. Whether bone-tendon healing is better facilitated by tendon fixation on a bone surface or within a tunnel is unknown. The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate the effects of bone surface versus bone trough fixation on bone-tendon healing in a rabbit patella-patellar tendon (PPT) injury model.Entities:
Keywords: Bone surface fixation; Bone tunnel/trough fixation; Bone–tendon healing; Bone–tendon interface; Partial patellectomy
Year: 2020 PMID: 32099804 PMCID: PMC7029051 DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2019.12.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Translat ISSN: 2214-031X Impact factor: 5.191
Figure 1(A) Illustration of bone surface fixation from superior and sagittal view; (B) illustration of bone trough fixation from superior and sagittal view.
Figure 6Biomechanical properties of the PPT healing interface. (A) Biomechanical testing of the QPPTC using a custom-made jig that included an upper clamp and a lower clamp to respectively fix the proximal patella and the tibial plateau. (B) The failure load and stiffness of the regenerated PPT interface in BSF and BTF groups at postoperative week 8 or 16. *: p<0.05. PPT, patella–patellar tendon; QPPTCs, quadriceps–patella–patellar tendon–tibia complexes; P, patella; PT, patellar tendon; TP, tibial plateau.
Figure 2Gross observation of the QPPTCs in BSF and BTF groups at postoperative week 8 or 16. Yellow dashed line indicates osteotomy site. PT, Patellar tendon, P: Patella; QPPTCs, Quadriceps–patella–patellar tendon–tibia complexes.
Figure 3(A) Representative micro-CT images of the proximal patella of the BSF and BTF groups at postoperative week 8 and week 16. The red dotted line indicates the osteotomy site. Scale bar = 1 mm. (B) Comparison of the bone volume fraction (BVF), bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th) and trabecular number (Tb.N) in newly formed bone between two groups at different time points. *: p<0.05.
Figure 4(A) Representative midsagittal sections of the PPT interface of the BSF and BTF groups at postoperative week 8 or 16. Scale bar = 50 μm. (B) Comparison of the fibrochondrocytes density, proteoglycan content, and collagen birefringence between the BSF and BTF groups at postoperative week 8 or 16. *: p<0.05. PPT, patella–patellar tendon; H&E, hematoxylin & eosin; TB, toluidine blue; SR, sirius red; NB, newly formed bone; F, fibrocartilage; T, tendon.
Figure 5Representative immunohistochemistry of the PPT interface of the BSF and BTF groups at postoperative week 8 or 16. Arrow: positively stained cells. Scale bar = 20 μm (low magnification) or 4 μm (high magnification). PPT, patella–patellar tendon; NB, newly formed bone; F, fibrocartilage; T, tendon.