首页> 外文期刊>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy: official journal of the ESSKA >Biomechanical comparison of three anatomic ACL reconstructions in a porcine model.
【24h】

Biomechanical comparison of three anatomic ACL reconstructions in a porcine model.

机译:猪模型中三种解剖学ACL重建的生物力学比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: Different tunnel configurations have been used for double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, controversy still exists as to whether three-tunnel DB with double-femoral tunnels and single-tibial tunnel (2F-1T) or with single-femoral tunnel and double-tibial tunnels (1F-2T) better restores intact knee biomechanics than single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction. The purpose was to compare the knee kinematics and in situ force in the grafts among SB and two types of three-tunnel DB ACL reconstructions performed in an anatomic fashion. METHODS: Twenty-four porcine knees were subjected to an 89-N anterior tibial load (simulated KT-1000 test) at 30 degrees , 60 degrees , and 90 degrees of flexion and to a 4-Nm internal tibial torque and 7-Nm valgus torque (simulated pivot-shift test) at 30 degrees and 60 degrees of flexion. The resulting knee kinematics and in situ force in the ACL or replacement grafts were measured using a robotic system for (1) ACL-intact, (2) ACL-deficient, and (3) three ACL reconstructed knees: SB; DB 2F-1T; and DB 1F-2T. RESULTS: During the simulated pivot-shift test, the DB grafts more closely restored the in situ force in the intact ACL at low flexion angle than the SB graft. There were no significant differences in knee kinematics between SB and DB ACL reconstruction. The DB 2F-1T reconstruction did not show a significant difference in knee kinematics or in situ force when compared to the DB 1F-2T technique. CONCLUSION: The in situ force in the ACL is better restored with an anatomic three-tunnel DB reconstruction in response to the simulated pivot-shift test at low flexion angle when compared to an anatomic SB reconstruction. Both three-tunnel DB ACL reconstructions performed in an anatomic fashion had similar biomechanical behavior. As long as it is performed anatomically, DB ACL reconstruction could be better alternative than SB ACL reconstruction, no matter which three-tunnel procedure, 2F-1T or 1F-2T, is used.
机译:目的:不同的隧道配置已被用于双束(DB)前十字韧带(ACL)重建。但是,关于双股隧道和单胫骨隧道(2F-1T)或单股隧道和双胫骨隧道(1F-2T)的三隧道DB是否比单隧道更好地恢复完整的膝关节生物力学仍存在争议-bundle(SB)ACL重建。目的是比较SB和两种以解剖方式进行的三通道DB ACL重建之间的膝关节运动学和原位力。方法:二十四只猪膝盖分别在30度,60度和90度屈曲下承受89-N胫骨前屈(模拟KT-1000测试),胫骨内部扭力为4-Nm,外翻为7-Nm弯曲(30度和60度)时的扭矩(模拟枢轴位移测试)。使用自动系统测量(1)完整的ACL,(2)缺乏ACL的机器人和(3)三个ACL重建的膝盖:SB; ACL或置换移植物中产生的膝盖运动学和原位力。 DB 2F-1T;和DB 1F-2T。结果:在模拟枢轴移位测试中,与SB移植相比,DB移植在低屈曲角度下更紧密地恢复了完整ACL中的原位力。 SB和DB ACL重建之间的膝部运动学没有显着差异。与DB 1F-2T技术相比,DB 2F-1T重建在膝关节运动学或原位力方面没有显示出显着差异。结论:与解剖性SB重建相比,解剖三隧道DB重建可更好地恢复ACL中的原位力,这是在低屈曲角度下对模拟枢轴位移测试的响应。以解剖方式执行的两个三通道DB ACL重建具有相似的生物力学行为。只要以解剖方式执行,无论使用2F-1T还是1F-2T这三种三通道程序,DB ACL重建都可能比SB ACL重建更好。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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