Polyurethane Scaffold vs Fascia Lata Autograft for Hip Labral Reconstruction: Comparison of Femoroacetabular Biomechanics.
autograft
hip
labrum
polyurethane scaffold
reconstruction
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:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
entrez:
27
2
2023
pubmed:
28
2
2023
medline:
28
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The integrity of the acetabular labrum is critical in providing normal function and minimizing hip degeneration and is considered key for success in today's hip preservation algorithm. Many advances have been made in labral repair and reconstruction to restore the suction seal. To compare the biomechanical effects of segmental labral reconstruction between the synthetic polyurethane scaffold (PS) and fascia lata autograft (FLA). Our hypothesis was that reconstruction with a macroporous polyurethane implant and autograft reconstruction of fascia lata would normalize hip joint kinetics and restore the suction seal. Controlled laboratory study. Ten cadaveric hips from 5 fresh-frozen pelvises underwent biomechanical testing with a dynamic intra-articular pressure measurement system under 3 conditions: (1) intact labrum, (2) reconstruction with PS after a 3-cm segmental labrectomy, then (3) reconstruction with FLA. Contact area, contact pressure, and peak force were evaluated in 4 positions: 90º of flexion in neutral, 90º of flexion plus internal rotation, 90º of flexion plus external rotation, and 20º of extension. A labral seal test was performed for both reconstruction techniques. The relative change from the intact condition (value = 1) was determined for all conditions and positions. PS restored contact area to at least 96% of intact (≥0.96; range, 0.96-0.98) in all 4 positions, and FLA restored contact area to at least 97% (≥0.97; range, 0.97-1.19). Contact pressure was restored to ≥1.08 (range, 1.08-1.11) with the PS and ≥1.08 (range, 1.08-1.10) with the FLA technique. Peak force returned to ≥1.02 (range, 1.02-1.05) with PS and ≥1.02 (range, 1.02-1.07) with FLA. No significant differences were found between the reconstruction techniques in contact area in any position ( Segmental hip labral reconstruction using PS and FLA reapproximated femoroacetabular contact biomechanics close to the intact state. These findings provide preclinical evidence supporting the use of a synthetic scaffold as an alternative to FLA and therefore avoiding donor site morbidity.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The integrity of the acetabular labrum is critical in providing normal function and minimizing hip degeneration and is considered key for success in today's hip preservation algorithm. Many advances have been made in labral repair and reconstruction to restore the suction seal.
Purpose/Hypothesis
UNASSIGNED
To compare the biomechanical effects of segmental labral reconstruction between the synthetic polyurethane scaffold (PS) and fascia lata autograft (FLA). Our hypothesis was that reconstruction with a macroporous polyurethane implant and autograft reconstruction of fascia lata would normalize hip joint kinetics and restore the suction seal.
Study Design
UNASSIGNED
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Ten cadaveric hips from 5 fresh-frozen pelvises underwent biomechanical testing with a dynamic intra-articular pressure measurement system under 3 conditions: (1) intact labrum, (2) reconstruction with PS after a 3-cm segmental labrectomy, then (3) reconstruction with FLA. Contact area, contact pressure, and peak force were evaluated in 4 positions: 90º of flexion in neutral, 90º of flexion plus internal rotation, 90º of flexion plus external rotation, and 20º of extension. A labral seal test was performed for both reconstruction techniques. The relative change from the intact condition (value = 1) was determined for all conditions and positions.
Results
UNASSIGNED
PS restored contact area to at least 96% of intact (≥0.96; range, 0.96-0.98) in all 4 positions, and FLA restored contact area to at least 97% (≥0.97; range, 0.97-1.19). Contact pressure was restored to ≥1.08 (range, 1.08-1.11) with the PS and ≥1.08 (range, 1.08-1.10) with the FLA technique. Peak force returned to ≥1.02 (range, 1.02-1.05) with PS and ≥1.02 (range, 1.02-1.07) with FLA. No significant differences were found between the reconstruction techniques in contact area in any position (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Segmental hip labral reconstruction using PS and FLA reapproximated femoroacetabular contact biomechanics close to the intact state.
Clinical Relevance
UNASSIGNED
These findings provide preclinical evidence supporting the use of a synthetic scaffold as an alternative to FLA and therefore avoiding donor site morbidity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36846818
doi: 10.1177/23259671221150632
pii: 10.1177_23259671221150632
pmc: PMC9944198
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671221150632Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. 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
Am J Transl Res. 2019 Apr 15;11(4):2484-2495
pubmed: 31105856
Front Surg. 2020 Oct 16;7:61
pubmed: 33195381
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014 May;43(5):209-14
pubmed: 24839626
J Biomech. 2006;39(6):1153-7
pubmed: 16549103
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019 Jun;12(2):156-165
pubmed: 30919325
Arch Orthop Unfallchir. 1972;74(1):13-32
pubmed: 4637068
Orthop J Sports Med. 2022 Sep 14;10(9):23259671221118831
pubmed: 36119123
Am J Sports Med. 2012 May;40(5):1015-21
pubmed: 22307078
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Feb;100(1):153-7
pubmed: 24332925
J Hip Preserv Surg. 2021 Jun 23;8(Suppl 1):i34-i40
pubmed: 34178369
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jul;39 Suppl:103S-10S
pubmed: 21709039
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2021 Feb;14(1):16-26
pubmed: 33501568
Am J Sports Med. 2020 May;48(6):1347-1355
pubmed: 32267737
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Sep;20(9):1822-30
pubmed: 22089373
Arthroscopy. 2022 Apr;38(4):1279-1287
pubmed: 34571182
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Dec 24;7(12):2325967119890846
pubmed: 31903404
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Oct;95(41):e5122
pubmed: 27741133
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 Aug;69(4):536-41
pubmed: 3611154
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Apr;40(4):844-53
pubmed: 22328711
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7(2):111-7
pubmed: 10223534
J Biomech. 1986;19(5):399-404
pubmed: 3733765
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):730-5
pubmed: 27235512
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 May;24(5):1478-84
pubmed: 26298712
J Biomech. 2000 Aug;33(8):953-60
pubmed: 10828325
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Aug;476(8):1680-1684
pubmed: 30020152
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Apr;22(4):737-43
pubmed: 24318405
Arthrosc Tech. 2021 Jul 20;10(8):e1995-e2004
pubmed: 34401245
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Sep 16;102(18):1581-1587
pubmed: 32675477
Arch Orthop Unfallchir. 1972;72(1):1-9
pubmed: 5020681
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):98-104
pubmed: 25361860
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Apr;466(4):884-91
pubmed: 18288549
J Orthop Res. 1990 Jul;8(4):504-13
pubmed: 2355290
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2020 Mar;28(3):267-274
pubmed: 31877382
Int Orthop. 2021 Apr;45(4):977-983
pubmed: 32949258
Arthroscopy. 2020 Sep;36(9):2433-2442
pubmed: 32504714
Clin Sports Med. 2020 Jan;39(1):83-92
pubmed: 31767112
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Mar;467(3):753-9
pubmed: 19048354
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Apr;22(4):722-9
pubmed: 24519614