Cargando…

Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels

BACKGROUND: Anatomic lateral ankle ligament reconstruction has been proposed for patients with chronic ankle instability. A reliable approach is a reconstruction technique using an allograft and 2 fibular tunnels. A recently introduced approach that entails 1–fibular tunnel reconstruction might redu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gautschi, Martina, Bachmann, Elias, Shirota, Camila, Götschi, Tobias, Renner, Niklas, Wirth, Stephan H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33150191
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120959284
_version_ 1783599904562610176
author Gautschi, Martina
Bachmann, Elias
Shirota, Camila
Götschi, Tobias
Renner, Niklas
Wirth, Stephan H.
author_facet Gautschi, Martina
Bachmann, Elias
Shirota, Camila
Götschi, Tobias
Renner, Niklas
Wirth, Stephan H.
author_sort Gautschi, Martina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Anatomic lateral ankle ligament reconstruction has been proposed for patients with chronic ankle instability. A reliable approach is a reconstruction technique using an allograft and 2 fibular tunnels. A recently introduced approach that entails 1–fibular tunnel reconstruction might reduce the risk of intraoperative complications and ultimately improve patient outcome. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that both reconstruction techniques show similar ankle stability (joint laxity and stiffness) and are similar to the intact joint condition. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 10 Thiel-conserved cadaveric ankles were divided into 2 groups and tested in 3 stages—intact, transected, and reconstructed lateral ankle ligaments—using either the 1– or the 2–fibular tunnel technique. To quantify stability in each stage, anterior drawer and talar tilt tests were performed in 0°, 10°, and 20° of plantarflexion (anterior drawer test) or dorsiflexion (talar tilt test). Bone displacements were measured using motion capture, from which laxity and stiffness were calculated together with applied forces. Finally, reconstructed ligaments were tested to failure in neutral position with a maximal applicable torque in inversion. A mixed linear model was used to describe and compare the outcomes. RESULTS: When ankle stability of intact and reconstructed ligaments was compared, no significant difference was found between reconstruction techniques for any flexion angle. Also, no significant difference was found when the maximal applicable torque of the 1-tunnel technique (9.1 ± 4.4 N·m) was compared with the 2-tunnel technique (8.9 ± 4.8 N·m). CONCLUSION: Lateral ankle ligament reconstruction with an allograft using 1 fibular tunnel demonstrated similar biomechanical stability to the 2-tunnel approach. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Demonstrating similar stability in a cadaveric study and given the potential to reduce intraoperative complications, the 1–fibular tunnel approach should be considered a viable option for the surgical therapy of chronic ankle instability. Clinical randomized prospective trials are needed to determine the clinical outcome of the 1-tunnel approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7585988
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75859882020-11-03 Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels Gautschi, Martina Bachmann, Elias Shirota, Camila Götschi, Tobias Renner, Niklas Wirth, Stephan H. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Anatomic lateral ankle ligament reconstruction has been proposed for patients with chronic ankle instability. A reliable approach is a reconstruction technique using an allograft and 2 fibular tunnels. A recently introduced approach that entails 1–fibular tunnel reconstruction might reduce the risk of intraoperative complications and ultimately improve patient outcome. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that both reconstruction techniques show similar ankle stability (joint laxity and stiffness) and are similar to the intact joint condition. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 10 Thiel-conserved cadaveric ankles were divided into 2 groups and tested in 3 stages—intact, transected, and reconstructed lateral ankle ligaments—using either the 1– or the 2–fibular tunnel technique. To quantify stability in each stage, anterior drawer and talar tilt tests were performed in 0°, 10°, and 20° of plantarflexion (anterior drawer test) or dorsiflexion (talar tilt test). Bone displacements were measured using motion capture, from which laxity and stiffness were calculated together with applied forces. Finally, reconstructed ligaments were tested to failure in neutral position with a maximal applicable torque in inversion. A mixed linear model was used to describe and compare the outcomes. RESULTS: When ankle stability of intact and reconstructed ligaments was compared, no significant difference was found between reconstruction techniques for any flexion angle. Also, no significant difference was found when the maximal applicable torque of the 1-tunnel technique (9.1 ± 4.4 N·m) was compared with the 2-tunnel technique (8.9 ± 4.8 N·m). CONCLUSION: Lateral ankle ligament reconstruction with an allograft using 1 fibular tunnel demonstrated similar biomechanical stability to the 2-tunnel approach. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Demonstrating similar stability in a cadaveric study and given the potential to reduce intraoperative complications, the 1–fibular tunnel approach should be considered a viable option for the surgical therapy of chronic ankle instability. Clinical randomized prospective trials are needed to determine the clinical outcome of the 1-tunnel approach. SAGE Publications 2020-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7585988/ /pubmed/33150191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120959284 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Gautschi, Martina
Bachmann, Elias
Shirota, Camila
Götschi, Tobias
Renner, Niklas
Wirth, Stephan H.
Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels
title Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels
title_full Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels
title_fullStr Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels
title_short Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels
title_sort biomechanics of ankle ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study to compare stability of reconstruction techniques using 1 or 2 fibular tunnels
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33150191
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120959284
work_keys_str_mv AT gautschimartina biomechanicsofankleligamentreconstructionacadavericstudytocomparestabilityofreconstructiontechniquesusing1or2fibulartunnels
AT bachmannelias biomechanicsofankleligamentreconstructionacadavericstudytocomparestabilityofreconstructiontechniquesusing1or2fibulartunnels
AT shirotacamila biomechanicsofankleligamentreconstructionacadavericstudytocomparestabilityofreconstructiontechniquesusing1or2fibulartunnels
AT gotschitobias biomechanicsofankleligamentreconstructionacadavericstudytocomparestabilityofreconstructiontechniquesusing1or2fibulartunnels
AT rennerniklas biomechanicsofankleligamentreconstructionacadavericstudytocomparestabilityofreconstructiontechniquesusing1or2fibulartunnels
AT wirthstephanh biomechanicsofankleligamentreconstructionacadavericstudytocomparestabilityofreconstructiontechniquesusing1or2fibulartunnels