Cargando…
Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques
BACKGROUND: Elbow dislocation represents a common injury, especially in the younger population. If treated surgically, the reattached tendons require a high amount of primary stability to allow for an early rehabilitation to avoid postoperative stiffness. The purpose of this study was to assess the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278143/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30509244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2341-y |
_version_ | 1783378297075269632 |
---|---|
author | Lenich, Andreas Pfeifer, Christian Proier, Philipp Fleer, Roman Wijdicks, Coen Roth, Martina Martetschläger, Frank Pogorzelski, Jonas |
author_facet | Lenich, Andreas Pfeifer, Christian Proier, Philipp Fleer, Roman Wijdicks, Coen Roth, Martina Martetschläger, Frank Pogorzelski, Jonas |
author_sort | Lenich, Andreas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Elbow dislocation represents a common injury, especially in the younger population. If treated surgically, the reattached tendons require a high amount of primary stability to allow for an early rehabilitation to avoid postoperative stiffness. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical properties of a single and a double row technique for reattachment of the common extensor and common flexor muscles origin. We hypothesized that the double row technique would provide greater stability in terms of pullout forces than the single row technique. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric specimens were randomized into two groups of fixation methods for the common extensor tendon or the common flexor tendon at the elbow (1): a single row technique using two knotted 3.0 mm suture anchors, and (2) a double row technique using an additional knotless 3.5 mm anchor. The repairs were cyclically loaded over 500 cycles at 1 Hz from 10 N to a maximum of 100 N (extensors) or 150 N (flexors), and then pulled to failure. Stiffness and maximum load at failure and mode of failure were recorded and calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences in stiffness were observed between the two techniques for both the extensor and flexor reattachment (P = 0.701 and P = 0.306, respectively). The mean maximum load at failure indicated that the double row construct was significantly stronger than the single row construct. This was found to be true for both the extensor and flexor reattachment (213.6; SD 78.7 N versus 384.1; SD 105.6 N, P = 0.010 and 203.7; SD 65.8 N versus 318.0; SD 64.6 N, P = 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The double row technique provides significant greater stability to the reattached common flexor or extensor origin to the medial or lateral epicondyle. Thus, it should be considered in the development of improved repair techniques for stabilizers of the elbow. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6278143 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62781432018-12-10 Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques Lenich, Andreas Pfeifer, Christian Proier, Philipp Fleer, Roman Wijdicks, Coen Roth, Martina Martetschläger, Frank Pogorzelski, Jonas BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Elbow dislocation represents a common injury, especially in the younger population. If treated surgically, the reattached tendons require a high amount of primary stability to allow for an early rehabilitation to avoid postoperative stiffness. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical properties of a single and a double row technique for reattachment of the common extensor and common flexor muscles origin. We hypothesized that the double row technique would provide greater stability in terms of pullout forces than the single row technique. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric specimens were randomized into two groups of fixation methods for the common extensor tendon or the common flexor tendon at the elbow (1): a single row technique using two knotted 3.0 mm suture anchors, and (2) a double row technique using an additional knotless 3.5 mm anchor. The repairs were cyclically loaded over 500 cycles at 1 Hz from 10 N to a maximum of 100 N (extensors) or 150 N (flexors), and then pulled to failure. Stiffness and maximum load at failure and mode of failure were recorded and calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences in stiffness were observed between the two techniques for both the extensor and flexor reattachment (P = 0.701 and P = 0.306, respectively). The mean maximum load at failure indicated that the double row construct was significantly stronger than the single row construct. This was found to be true for both the extensor and flexor reattachment (213.6; SD 78.7 N versus 384.1; SD 105.6 N, P = 0.010 and 203.7; SD 65.8 N versus 318.0; SD 64.6 N, P = 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The double row technique provides significant greater stability to the reattached common flexor or extensor origin to the medial or lateral epicondyle. Thus, it should be considered in the development of improved repair techniques for stabilizers of the elbow. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. BioMed Central 2018-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6278143/ /pubmed/30509244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2341-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Lenich, Andreas Pfeifer, Christian Proier, Philipp Fleer, Roman Wijdicks, Coen Roth, Martina Martetschläger, Frank Pogorzelski, Jonas Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques |
title | Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques |
title_full | Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques |
title_fullStr | Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques |
title_full_unstemmed | Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques |
title_short | Reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques |
title_sort | reattachment of the flexor and extensor tendons at the epicondyle in elbow instability: a biomechanical comparison of techniques |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278143/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30509244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2341-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lenichandreas reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques AT pfeiferchristian reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques AT proierphilipp reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques AT fleerroman reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques AT wijdickscoen reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques AT rothmartina reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques AT martetschlagerfrank reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques AT pogorzelskijonas reattachmentoftheflexorandextensortendonsattheepicondyleinelbowinstabilityabiomechanicalcomparisonoftechniques |