The buried knot technique for all inside graft link preparation leads to superior biomechanical graft link stability.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 02 2019
06 02 2019
Historique:
received:
31
05
2018
accepted:
13
12
2018
entrez:
8
2
2019
pubmed:
8
2
2019
medline:
20
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to measure and compare the biomechanical properties of two different graft link preparation techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. We hypothesised that there would be differences in elongation, load at failure and failure mode due to the different graft link preparation techniques. Thirty fresh-frozen anatomical specimen knees were used. Both tendons (semitendinosus and gracilis) were harvested and randomly assigned to two groups. Graft links prepared with a continuous loop technique were allocated to group 1, whereas those prepared with a buried-knot technique were allocated to group 2. The mechanical properties of both techniques were measured. A mean load to failure of 731 N and an overall graft elongation of 6 mm was found in the continuous loop group. In the buried-knot group, a higher load to failure (848 N) and a lower mean overall elongation (5 mm) was found. The buried-knot technique showed better results with significantly higher load to failure and significantly less elongation compared to the continuous loop technique. It is essential in clinical practice to choose the most accurate technique for graft link preparation to ensure graft stability, especially in the early phase of recovery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30728415
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38150-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-018-38150-w
pmc: PMC6365500
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1488Références
Am J Sports Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;29(6):734-7
pubmed: 11734486
Arthroscopy. 2006 Jan;22(1):33-7
pubmed: 16399458
Arthroscopy. 2007 Mar;23(3):326.e1-3
pubmed: 17349483
Arthroscopy. 2008 May;24(5):599-603
pubmed: 18442694
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008 Oct;16(10):935-47
pubmed: 18633596
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Oct;38(10):1979-86
pubmed: 20889962
J Surg Orthop Adv. 2011 Summer;20(2):142-4
pubmed: 21838078
Arthroscopy. 2012 May;28(5):702-10
pubmed: 22261138
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013 Jan;23(1):105-9
pubmed: 23412415
Arthrosc Tech. 2012 Aug 31;1(2):e165-8
pubmed: 23766990
Arthroscopy. 2013 Jul;29(7):1195-200
pubmed: 23809454
Int Orthop. 2014 Jan;38(1):73-82
pubmed: 24100920
Arthrosc Tech. 2014 May 12;3(3):e321-4
pubmed: 25126495
Arthroscopy. 2014 Dec;30(12):1609-15
pubmed: 25174535
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):121-7
pubmed: 25325560
Arthroscopy. 2015 Jun;31(6):1084-90
pubmed: 25703286
Knee. 2018 Jun;25(3):427-433
pubmed: 29628315
Am J Sports Med. 1987 May-Jun;15(3):225-9
pubmed: 3303979
Biomed Eng. 1969 Dec;4(12):573-80
pubmed: 5378020
J Biomech. 1970 Jan;3(1):51-61
pubmed: 5521530
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Jan-Feb;(172):71-7
pubmed: 6337002
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Mar;66(3):344-52
pubmed: 6699049
Am J Sports Med. 1997 Mar-Apr;25(2):261-7
pubmed: 9079185