Nadine Ott1, Arne Harland2, Fabian Lanzerath2, Tim Leschinger2, Michael Hackl2, Kilian Wegmann2, Lars Peter Müller2. 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne and Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. Nadine.ott@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne and Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lateral collateral ligament (LCL) tears are frequently observed in fractures and dislocations of the elbow. Recent biomechanical evidence suggests that additional ligament augmentation may improve repair stability. The aim of this biomechanical in-vitro study was to compare the resistance of a locking suture repair of the LCL with a ligament augmentation technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight fresh frozen cadaveric elbows were evaluated for stability against varus/posterolateral rotatory forces (3 Nm). A strain gauge (µm/m; negative values) was placed at the origin and insertion of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) and cyclic loading was performed for 1000 cycles. We analyzed three distinct scenarios: (A) native LCL, (B) locking transosseou suture repair of the LCL, (C) simple LCL repair with additional ligament augmentation of the LUCL. RESULTS: The mean measured strain was - 416.1 µm/m (A), - 618 µm/m (B) and - 288.5 µm/m (C) with the elbow flexion at 90°; the strain was significantly higher in scenario B compared to C (p = .01). During the cyclic load (1000) the mean measured strain was - 523.1 µm/m (B) and - 226.3 µm/m (C) with the elbow flexion at 60°; the strain was significantly higher in scenario B compared to C (p = .01). No significant difference between the first and the last cycles was observed (p = .09; p = .07). One failure of the LCL repair was observed after 1000 cycles; none of the ligament augmentations failed. CONCLUSION: Ligament augmentation (C) provides higher resistance compared to the native LCL (A) and to the locking suture repair technique (B). Both techniques, however, hold up during 1000 cycles. While ligament augmentation might enhance the primary stability of the repair, future clinical studies have to show whether this increase in resistance leads to negative effects like higher rates of posttraumatic elbow stiffness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study, biomechanics.
BACKGROUND: Lateral collateral ligament (LCL) tears are frequently observed in fractures and dislocations of the elbow. Recent biomechanical evidence suggests that additional ligament augmentation may improve repair stability. The aim of this biomechanical in-vitro study was to compare the resistance of a locking suture repair of the LCL with a ligament augmentation technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight fresh frozen cadaveric elbows were evaluated for stability against varus/posterolateral rotatory forces (3 Nm). A strain gauge (µm/m; negative values) was placed at the origin and insertion of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) and cyclic loading was performed for 1000 cycles. We analyzed three distinct scenarios: (A) native LCL, (B) locking transosseou suture repair of the LCL, (C) simple LCL repair with additional ligament augmentation of the LUCL. RESULTS: The mean measured strain was - 416.1 µm/m (A), - 618 µm/m (B) and - 288.5 µm/m (C) with the elbow flexion at 90°; the strain was significantly higher in scenario B compared to C (p = .01). During the cyclic load (1000) the mean measured strain was - 523.1 µm/m (B) and - 226.3 µm/m (C) with the elbow flexion at 60°; the strain was significantly higher in scenario B compared to C (p = .01). No significant difference between the first and the last cycles was observed (p = .09; p = .07). One failure of the LCL repair was observed after 1000 cycles; none of the ligament augmentations failed. CONCLUSION: Ligament augmentation (C) provides higher resistance compared to the native LCL (A) and to the locking suture repair technique (B). Both techniques, however, hold up during 1000 cycles. While ligament augmentation might enhance the primary stability of the repair, future clinical studies have to show whether this increase in resistance leads to negative effects like higher rates of posttraumatic elbow stiffness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study, biomechanics.
Authors: Michael Hackl; Nicolai Heinze; Kilian Wegmann; Sebastian Lappen; Tim Leschinger; Klaus Josef Burkhart; Martin Scaal; Lars Peter Müller Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Oke A Anakwenze; Vamsi K Kancherla; Jaicharan Iyengar; Christopher S Ahmad; William N Levine Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Bastian Scheiderer; Florian B Imhoff; Cameron Kia; James Aglio; Daichi Morikawa; Elifho Obopilwe; Mark P Cote; Lucca Lacheta; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Sebastian Siebenlist Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Blake M Bodendorfer; Austin M Looney; Sloane L Lipkin; Esther C Nolton; Jihui Li; Robert G Najarian; Edward S Chang Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: David L Bernholt; Spencer P Lake; Ryan M Castile; Christopher Papangelou; Oliver Hauck; Matthew V Smith Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 3.019