Cargando…

Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study

Purpose: Graft diameter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions has been shown to influence the risk of failure. It is therefore important to be able to adjust the graft configuration to modify the diameter. To measure the impact of a 6-strand (6S) hamstring autograft configuration on graft di...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bourgeault-Gagnon, Yoan, Leang, Alexandre Keith, Bédard, Sonia, Lebel, Karina, Balg, Frédéric, Vézina, François
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: EDP Sciences 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38032265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023033
_version_ 1785152146333761536
author Bourgeault-Gagnon, Yoan
Leang, Alexandre Keith
Bédard, Sonia
Lebel, Karina
Balg, Frédéric
Vézina, François
author_facet Bourgeault-Gagnon, Yoan
Leang, Alexandre Keith
Bédard, Sonia
Lebel, Karina
Balg, Frédéric
Vézina, François
author_sort Bourgeault-Gagnon, Yoan
collection PubMed
description Purpose: Graft diameter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions has been shown to influence the risk of failure. It is therefore important to be able to adjust the graft configuration to modify the diameter. To measure the impact of a 6-strand (6S) hamstring autograft configuration on graft diameter compared to the standard 4-strand (4S) configuration. Methods: Cadaveric study on 33 knees, using the usual hamstring graft harvesting technique. Semitendinosus and gracilis tendons were harvested and their length, width, and diameter were measured in 4S and 6S configurations separately by three evaluators. Results: 6S configuration leads to a median increase of 1.5 (range: 0.0–2.0) mm in diameter compared to 4S (p < 0.001). A graft diameter of more than 8 mm is attained in less than a third of 4S grafts within this population in comparison to 84% when the 6S configuration is used. Discussion: The 6S hamstring graft configuration increases the graft diameter by a median of 1.5 millimeters compared to the traditional 4S configuration. It can reliably be used to obtain an 8.5 mm graft diameter or more in cases where the semitendinosus measures at least 270.5 mm and the 4S configuration has a diameter of 7.5 mm or 8 mm. This information helps to better delineate the impact of a 6S configuration in a pre-operative or intra-operative setting to optimize the decisional process and surgical flow and to easily adapt the graft diameter. Level of evidence: V (cadaveric study)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10688256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher EDP Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106882562023-11-30 Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study Bourgeault-Gagnon, Yoan Leang, Alexandre Keith Bédard, Sonia Lebel, Karina Balg, Frédéric Vézina, François SICOT J Original Article Purpose: Graft diameter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions has been shown to influence the risk of failure. It is therefore important to be able to adjust the graft configuration to modify the diameter. To measure the impact of a 6-strand (6S) hamstring autograft configuration on graft diameter compared to the standard 4-strand (4S) configuration. Methods: Cadaveric study on 33 knees, using the usual hamstring graft harvesting technique. Semitendinosus and gracilis tendons were harvested and their length, width, and diameter were measured in 4S and 6S configurations separately by three evaluators. Results: 6S configuration leads to a median increase of 1.5 (range: 0.0–2.0) mm in diameter compared to 4S (p < 0.001). A graft diameter of more than 8 mm is attained in less than a third of 4S grafts within this population in comparison to 84% when the 6S configuration is used. Discussion: The 6S hamstring graft configuration increases the graft diameter by a median of 1.5 millimeters compared to the traditional 4S configuration. It can reliably be used to obtain an 8.5 mm graft diameter or more in cases where the semitendinosus measures at least 270.5 mm and the 4S configuration has a diameter of 7.5 mm or 8 mm. This information helps to better delineate the impact of a 6S configuration in a pre-operative or intra-operative setting to optimize the decisional process and surgical flow and to easily adapt the graft diameter. Level of evidence: V (cadaveric study) EDP Sciences 2023-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10688256/ /pubmed/38032265 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023033 Text en © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bourgeault-Gagnon, Yoan
Leang, Alexandre Keith
Bédard, Sonia
Lebel, Karina
Balg, Frédéric
Vézina, François
Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study
title Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study
title_full Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study
title_fullStr Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study
title_full_unstemmed Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study
title_short Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study
title_sort estimated diameter increase from a 4s to a 6s hamstring graft configuration – a cadaveric study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38032265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023033
work_keys_str_mv AT bourgeaultgagnonyoan estimateddiameterincreasefroma4stoa6shamstringgraftconfigurationacadavericstudy
AT leangalexandrekeith estimateddiameterincreasefroma4stoa6shamstringgraftconfigurationacadavericstudy
AT bedardsonia estimateddiameterincreasefroma4stoa6shamstringgraftconfigurationacadavericstudy
AT lebelkarina estimateddiameterincreasefroma4stoa6shamstringgraftconfigurationacadavericstudy
AT balgfrederic estimateddiameterincreasefroma4stoa6shamstringgraftconfigurationacadavericstudy
AT vezinafrancois estimateddiameterincreasefroma4stoa6shamstringgraftconfigurationacadavericstudy