Cargando…

Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model

BACKGROUND: With the developments in the arthroscopic technique, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant-preserving reconstruction is gradually gaining attention with respect to improving proprioception and enhancing early revascularization of the graft. To evaluate the mechanical pull-out strength...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ryu, Dong Jin, Kwon, Kyeu Back, Hong, Da Hee, Park, Sang Jun, Park, Jae Sung, Wang, Joon Ho
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7860227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33536007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-03955-w
_version_ 1783646898197889024
author Ryu, Dong Jin
Kwon, Kyeu Back
Hong, Da Hee
Park, Sang Jun
Park, Jae Sung
Wang, Joon Ho
author_facet Ryu, Dong Jin
Kwon, Kyeu Back
Hong, Da Hee
Park, Sang Jun
Park, Jae Sung
Wang, Joon Ho
author_sort Ryu, Dong Jin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With the developments in the arthroscopic technique, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant-preserving reconstruction is gradually gaining attention with respect to improving proprioception and enhancing early revascularization of the graft. To evaluate the mechanical pull-out strength of three different methods for remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Twenty-seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used in this study. Each knee was dissected to isolate the femoral attachment of ACL and cut the attachment. An MTS tensile testing machine with dual-screw fixation clamp with 30° flexion angle was used. The 27 specimens were tested after applying re-tensioning sutures with No. 0 polydioxanone (PDS), using the single stitch (n = 9), loop stitch (n = 9), and triple stitch (n = 9) methods. We measured the mode of failure, defined as (1) ligament failure (longitudinal splitting of the remnant ACL) or (2) suture failure (tearing of the PDS stitch); load-to-failure strength; and stiffness for the three methods. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the variance of load-to-failure strength and stiffness among the three groups. RESULTS: Ligament failure occurred in all cases in the single stitch group and in all but one case in the triple stitch group. Suture failure occurred in all cases in the loop stitch group and in one case in the triple stitch group. The load-to-failure strength was significantly higher with loop stich (91.52 ± 8.19 N) and triple stitch (111.1 ± 18.15 N) than with single stitch (43.79 ± 11.54 N) (p = 0.002). With respect to stiffness, triple stitch (2.50 ± 0.37 N/mm) yielded significantly higher stiffness than the other methods (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that loop stitch or triple stitch would be a better option for increasing the mechanical strength when applying remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7860227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78602272021-02-05 Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model Ryu, Dong Jin Kwon, Kyeu Back Hong, Da Hee Park, Sang Jun Park, Jae Sung Wang, Joon Ho BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: With the developments in the arthroscopic technique, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant-preserving reconstruction is gradually gaining attention with respect to improving proprioception and enhancing early revascularization of the graft. To evaluate the mechanical pull-out strength of three different methods for remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Twenty-seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used in this study. Each knee was dissected to isolate the femoral attachment of ACL and cut the attachment. An MTS tensile testing machine with dual-screw fixation clamp with 30° flexion angle was used. The 27 specimens were tested after applying re-tensioning sutures with No. 0 polydioxanone (PDS), using the single stitch (n = 9), loop stitch (n = 9), and triple stitch (n = 9) methods. We measured the mode of failure, defined as (1) ligament failure (longitudinal splitting of the remnant ACL) or (2) suture failure (tearing of the PDS stitch); load-to-failure strength; and stiffness for the three methods. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the variance of load-to-failure strength and stiffness among the three groups. RESULTS: Ligament failure occurred in all cases in the single stitch group and in all but one case in the triple stitch group. Suture failure occurred in all cases in the loop stitch group and in one case in the triple stitch group. The load-to-failure strength was significantly higher with loop stich (91.52 ± 8.19 N) and triple stitch (111.1 ± 18.15 N) than with single stitch (43.79 ± 11.54 N) (p = 0.002). With respect to stiffness, triple stitch (2.50 ± 0.37 N/mm) yielded significantly higher stiffness than the other methods (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that loop stitch or triple stitch would be a better option for increasing the mechanical strength when applying remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction. BioMed Central 2021-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7860227/ /pubmed/33536007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-03955-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ryu, Dong Jin
Kwon, Kyeu Back
Hong, Da Hee
Park, Sang Jun
Park, Jae Sung
Wang, Joon Ho
Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model
title Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model
title_full Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model
title_fullStr Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model
title_full_unstemmed Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model
title_short Anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model
title_sort anterior cruciate ligament remnant‐preserving and re‐tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re‐tensioning methods in a porcine model
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7860227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33536007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-03955-w
work_keys_str_mv AT ryudongjin anteriorcruciateligamentremnantpreservingandretensioningreconstructionabiomechanicalcomparisonstudyofthreedifferentretensioningmethodsinaporcinemodel
AT kwonkyeuback anteriorcruciateligamentremnantpreservingandretensioningreconstructionabiomechanicalcomparisonstudyofthreedifferentretensioningmethodsinaporcinemodel
AT hongdahee anteriorcruciateligamentremnantpreservingandretensioningreconstructionabiomechanicalcomparisonstudyofthreedifferentretensioningmethodsinaporcinemodel
AT parksangjun anteriorcruciateligamentremnantpreservingandretensioningreconstructionabiomechanicalcomparisonstudyofthreedifferentretensioningmethodsinaporcinemodel
AT parkjaesung anteriorcruciateligamentremnantpreservingandretensioningreconstructionabiomechanicalcomparisonstudyofthreedifferentretensioningmethodsinaporcinemodel
AT wangjoonho anteriorcruciateligamentremnantpreservingandretensioningreconstructionabiomechanicalcomparisonstudyofthreedifferentretensioningmethodsinaporcinemodel