Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with 4-Strand Hamstring Tendon Construct May be Biomechanically Superior to 5-Strand Hamstring Tendon Construct When Using Femoral Suspensory Fixation.
Journal
Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation
ISSN: 2666-061X
Titre abrégé: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101765256
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2021
accepted:
11
03
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
25
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare stiffness, strain, and load to failure of 4- versus 5-strand hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction human tendon allografts with femoral suspensory and tibial interference screw fixation. Allograft hamstring tendons were used to create 10 four-strand (4S) and 10 five-strand (5S) grafts. Grafts were fixed to a uniaxial electromechanical load system via a femoral cortical suspensory button and a bioabsorbable interference screw in bone analogue. Grafts were cycled from 100 Newtons (N) to 250 N for 1,000 repetitions at 0.5 hertz before load to failure testing. Cyclic displacement was defined as the difference in graft length from the first 20 to 30 cycles compared with the last 10 cycles. Trials were recorded on a high-definition camera to allow for digital image correlation analysis. Cyclic displacement more than 1,000 cycles was significantly lower in the 4S compared with the 5S group (0.87 vs 1.11 mm, Compared with cyclically loaded 4S hamstring grafts, the 5S grafts had significantly increased displacement over time in a model of femoral suspensory and tibial interference screw fixation. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft is a commonly performed surgery with excellent outcomes. It has been shown that graft diameter influences these outcomes. As surgeons use larger grafts, it is important to investigate how these constructs may affect the outcomes of surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35747627
doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.03.008
pii: S2666-061X(22)00036-0
pmc: PMC9210479
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1097-e1102Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
Arthroscopy. 2015 Jun;31(6):1084-90
pubmed: 25703286
J Knee Surg. 2017 Nov;30(9):916-919
pubmed: 28282673
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2017 Feb 21;9(1):6989
pubmed: 28286624
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1808-12
pubmed: 23813800
Arthroscopy. 2013 Dec;29(12):1948-53
pubmed: 24140144
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;44(6):1475-81
pubmed: 27002103
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;39(10):2161-9
pubmed: 21712483
Arthroscopy. 2020 Aug;36(8):2279-2291.e8
pubmed: 32387652
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Nov-Dec;27(6):778-83
pubmed: 10569365
J Exp Orthop. 2018 Nov 27;5(1):48
pubmed: 30483889
Sports Health. 2011 Jan;3(1):73-81
pubmed: 23015994
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;45(9):2092-2097
pubmed: 28460194
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Feb;20(2):262-7
pubmed: 21779795
Orthop J Sports Med. 2016 Jul 28;4(7):2325967116662249
pubmed: 27517057
Arthroscopy. 1998 Jul-Aug;14(5):459-64
pubmed: 9681536
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Feb 22;7(2):2325967119826094
pubmed: 30828581
Arthroscopy. 2021 Feb;37(2):579-585
pubmed: 32828934
Arthroscopy. 2012 Apr;28(4):526-31
pubmed: 22305299
Arthroscopy. 2022 Jun;38(6):2073-2089
pubmed: 34990759
Arthroscopy. 2018 Sep;34(9):2633-2640
pubmed: 29804953
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Jun;47(7):1576-1582
pubmed: 31095404