Reconstruction of the Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament of the Elbow: Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Anatomic Technique to the Docking Technique.
anatomic UCL reconstruction
docking technique
elbow
medial ulnar collateral ligament
modified Jobe technique
novel
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
entrez:
26
11
2019
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
26
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In recent years, understanding of the anatomy of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) has evolved, demonstrating that the insertional footprint of the UCL on the ulna is more elongated and distally tapered than previously described. Current UCL reconstruction configurations do not typically re-create this native anatomy, which may represent a potential area for improvement. The purposes of this study were (1) to describe a novel anatomic UCL reconstruction technique designed to better replicate the native UCL anatomy and (2) to biomechanically compare this with the docking technique. The hypothesis was that the ultimate load to failure for the anatomic technique would not be inferior to the docking technique. Controlled laboratory study. A total of 16 fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities (8 matched pairs) were utilized. One elbow in each pair was randomized to receive UCL reconstruction via the docking technique or the novel anatomic UCL reconstruction technique with palmaris tendon autograft. Following reconstruction, biomechanical testing was performed by applying valgus rotational torque at a constant rate of 5 deg/s until ultimate mechanical failure of the construct occurred. Maximal torque (N·m), rotation stiffness (N·m/deg), and mode/location of failure were recorded for each specimen. The mean ultimate load to failure for elbows in the docking technique group was 23.8 ± 6.1 N·m, as compared with 31.9 ± 8.4 N·m in the anatomic technique group ( Ultimately, the anatomic UCL reconstruction technique demonstrated superior strength and resistance to valgus torque when compared with the docking technique, and this was comparable with that of the native UCL from prior studies. Increased initial strength may allow for earlier initiation of throwing postoperatively and potentially shorten return-to-play times. Current UCL reconstruction techniques do not accurately reproduce the UCL insertional anatomy on the ulna. The novel anatomic technique described may result in more natural joint kinematics. This study demonstrated load-to-failure rates that are significantly higher than with the docking technique and consistent with the native ligament, as reported from previous studies. These findings may serve as a foundation for future clinical study and optimization of this technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In recent years, understanding of the anatomy of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) has evolved, demonstrating that the insertional footprint of the UCL on the ulna is more elongated and distally tapered than previously described. Current UCL reconstruction configurations do not typically re-create this native anatomy, which may represent a potential area for improvement.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
The purposes of this study were (1) to describe a novel anatomic UCL reconstruction technique designed to better replicate the native UCL anatomy and (2) to biomechanically compare this with the docking technique. The hypothesis was that the ultimate load to failure for the anatomic technique would not be inferior to the docking technique.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 16 fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities (8 matched pairs) were utilized. One elbow in each pair was randomized to receive UCL reconstruction via the docking technique or the novel anatomic UCL reconstruction technique with palmaris tendon autograft. Following reconstruction, biomechanical testing was performed by applying valgus rotational torque at a constant rate of 5 deg/s until ultimate mechanical failure of the construct occurred. Maximal torque (N·m), rotation stiffness (N·m/deg), and mode/location of failure were recorded for each specimen.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean ultimate load to failure for elbows in the docking technique group was 23.8 ± 6.1 N·m, as compared with 31.9 ± 8.4 N·m in the anatomic technique group (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Ultimately, the anatomic UCL reconstruction technique demonstrated superior strength and resistance to valgus torque when compared with the docking technique, and this was comparable with that of the native UCL from prior studies. Increased initial strength may allow for earlier initiation of throwing postoperatively and potentially shorten return-to-play times.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
Current UCL reconstruction techniques do not accurately reproduce the UCL insertional anatomy on the ulna. The novel anatomic technique described may result in more natural joint kinematics. This study demonstrated load-to-failure rates that are significantly higher than with the docking technique and consistent with the native ligament, as reported from previous studies. These findings may serve as a foundation for future clinical study and optimization of this technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31763343
doi: 10.1177/2325967119857592
pii: 10.1177_2325967119857592
pmc: PMC6852368
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967119857592Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was supported by a research grant from Arthrex. C.L.C. has received educational support from Arthrex and hospitality payments from Arthrex and Zimmer Biomet. B.B. and J.K. are employed by Arthrex. D.W.A. has received consulting fees from Stryker and hospitality payments from Arthrex. J.S.D. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, Trice, Linvatec, DePuy, Wright Medical, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received research support from Arthrex; receives royalties from Linvatec and Wolters Kluwer Health; is a paid speaker/presenter for Arthrex; and has received hospitality payments from Horizon Pharma. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Apr 02;6(4):2325967118763153
pubmed: 29637083
Am J Sports Med. 1998 Sep-Oct;26(5):620-4
pubmed: 9784806
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Apr;26(4):699-703
pubmed: 28325273
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jun;46(7):1727-1732
pubmed: 29629813
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Oct;41(10):2278-87
pubmed: 23940203
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016 Mar-Apr;45(3):116-23
pubmed: 26991562
Am J Sports Med. 2003 May-Jun;31(3):332-7
pubmed: 12750123
J Sports Sci Med. 2016 Dec 01;15(4):688-696
pubmed: 27928215
Am J Sports Med. 1995 Mar-Apr;23(2):233-9
pubmed: 7778711
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1565-70
pubmed: 18596198
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Sep-Oct;16(5):657-60
pubmed: 17583541
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Dec;43(12):2943-9
pubmed: 26403208
World J Orthop. 2018 Jun 18;9(6):78-84
pubmed: 29984194
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Mar 26;6(3):2325967118762751
pubmed: 29637082
Orthop J Sports Med. 2015 Dec 09;3(12):2325967115618914
pubmed: 26740956
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Feb;45(2):440-448
pubmed: 28146397
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):148-51
pubmed: 21926384
Am J Sports Med. 2002 Jul-Aug;30(4):541-8
pubmed: 12130409
Orthop J Sports Med. 2016 Nov 10;4(11):2325967116670142
pubmed: 27896290
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jun;25(6):1005-12
pubmed: 27197888
Clin Orthop Surg. 2012 Dec;4(4):249-55
pubmed: 23205233
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Mar;44(3):735-41
pubmed: 26717972
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Sep;39(9):1936-41
pubmed: 21555509
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Feb;24(2):265-72
pubmed: 25577730
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Dec;35(12):2039-44
pubmed: 17703003
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Mar-Apr;10(2):152-7
pubmed: 11307079
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Oct;68(8):1158-63
pubmed: 3771597
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;42(6):1323-32
pubmed: 24705898
J Hand Surg Am. 2014 Oct;39(10):2033-40
pubmed: 25194771
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Mar 21;100(6):479-486
pubmed: 29557864
Int J Surg. 2016 May;29:62-9
pubmed: 26987514
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Oct;34(10):1599-603
pubmed: 16861581
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Apr;35(4):575-81
pubmed: 17267772
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Feb;25(2):140-149
pubmed: 28098706
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jul;43(7):1764-9
pubmed: 25925603
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jul;43(7):1770-4
pubmed: 26129959
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;28(1):16-23
pubmed: 10653538
Arthroscopy. 2015 Nov;31(11):2258-72.e1
pubmed: 26194939
Sports Health. 2012 Sep;4(5):438-41
pubmed: 23016118
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Apr 19;6(4):2325967118769328
pubmed: 29780844
Arthrosc Tech. 2016 May 23;5(3):e519-23
pubmed: 27656372
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Mar;470(3):806-14
pubmed: 21909850
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Jul;24(7):2319-23
pubmed: 25533700
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Mar;44(3):729-34
pubmed: 26797699
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Sep 15;9:121
pubmed: 18793424
Sports Health. 2018 Nov/Dec;10(6):495-499
pubmed: 29638200
Cartilage. 2013 Jul;4(3 Suppl):27S-37S
pubmed: 26069663
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 May;27(5):871-878
pubmed: 29680328