...
首页> 外文期刊>Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association >Reverse Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Fixation: A Biomechanical Comparison Study of Tibial Cross-Pin and Femoral Interference Screw Fixation
【24h】

Reverse Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Fixation: A Biomechanical Comparison Study of Tibial Cross-Pin and Femoral Interference Screw Fixation

机译:前交叉韧带重建固定:生物力学比较的研究股骨和胫骨十字头销干涉螺丝固定

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: To evaluate the biomechanical performance of tibial cross-pin (TCP) fixation relative to femoral cross-pin (FCP), femoral interference screw (FIS), and tibial interference screw (TIS) fixation. Methods: We randomized 40 porcine specimens (20 tibias and 20 femurs) to TIS fixation (group 1, n = 10), FIS fixation (group 2, n = 10), TCP fixation (group 3, n = 10), or FCP fixation (group 4, n = 10) and performed biomechanical testing to compare ultimate load, stiffness, yield load, cyclic displacement, and load at 5-mm displacement. We performed cross-pin fixation of the looped end and interference screw fixation of the free ends of 9-mm-diameter bovine extensor digitorum communis tendon grafts. Graft fixation constructs were cyclically loaded and then loaded to failure in line with the tunnels. Results: Regarding yield load, FIS was superior to TIS (704 +/- 125 N vs 504 +/- 118 N, P =.002), TCP was superior to TIS (1,449 +/- 265 N vs 504 +/- 118 N, P <.001), and TCP was superior to FCP (1,449 +/- 265 N vs 792 +/- 397 N, P <.001). Cyclic displacement for FCP was superior to TCP. Cyclic displacement for TIS versus FIS showed no statistically significant difference (2.5 +/- 1.0 mm vs 2.2 +/- 0.6 mm, P =.298). Interference screw fixation consistently failed by graft slippage, whereas TCP fixation failed by tibial bone failure. FCP fixation failed by either femoral bone failure or failure elsewhere in the testing apparatus. Conclusions: Regarding yield load, TCP fixation performed biomechanically superior to the clinically proven FCP at time zero. Because TIS fixation shows the lowest yield strength, it represents the weak link, and combined TCP-FIS fixation theoretically would be biomechanically superior relative to combined FCP-TIS fixation with regard to yield load. Cyclic displacement showed a small difference in favor of FCP over TCP fixation and no difference between TIS and FIS. Clinical Relevance: Time-zero biomechanics of TCP fixation paired with FIS fixation show that this method of fixation can be considered a potential alternative to current practice and may pose clinical benefits in different clinical scenarios of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
机译:目的:评价生物力学性能固定的胫骨十字头销(TCP)相对股十字头销(FCP)股干扰螺丝(FIS),胫骨干扰螺钉(TIS)固定。标本(20 20胫骨和股骨)是固定(组1,n = 10), FIS固定(集团2 n = 10) TCP固定(3组,n = 10),或冷冻铸造固定(4组,n = 10)和执行生物力学测试比较极限载荷,刚度、屈服载荷、循环位移在5毫米的位移加载。固定钩端螺旋和干扰固定的自由结束9-mm-diameter牛普通的伸肌肌腱牵向前肌腱移植。循环加载和固定结构然后加载失败的隧道。结果:关于屈服载荷,金融中间人是优越的这(704 + / - 125 N和504 + / - 118 N, P = .002),TCP是优于TIS (1449 + / - 265 N vs 504+ / - 118 N, P <措施),和TCP是优于铸造(1449 + / - 265 N vs 792 + / - 397 N, P <措施)。循环位移为FCP优于TCP。循环位移是和FIS没有显示统计上的显著差异(2.5 + / - 1.0毫米和2.2 + / - 0.6毫米,P = .298)。螺钉固定移植失败滑移,而TCP胫骨固定失败了骨失败。股骨骨失败或其他地方的测试仪器。负载,TCP固定生物力学上执行优于临床证明FCP时刻零。力量,它代表了薄弱环节,结合TCP-FIS理论上固定生物力学优势相对于总和FCP-TIS固定屈服载荷。循环位移显示一个小的差异支持FCP TCP固定和没有区别这和FIS之间。时刻0生物力学的TCP固定搭配与FIS固定显示这种方法固定可以被认为是一个潜在的替代当前实践和可能构成在不同临床场景中临床益处前交叉韧带重建。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号