Struhl Steven, Wolfson Theodore S, Kummer Frederick
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York, USA.
Musculoskeletal Research Center, New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2016 Dec 16;4(12):2325967116674668. doi: 10.1177/2325967116674668. eCollection 2016 Dec.
Although numerous suture-button fixation techniques for acromioclavicular (AC) joint reconstruction have been validated with biomechanical testing in the superior direction, clinical reports continue to demonstrate high rates of construct slippage and breakage.
To compare the stability of a novel closed-loop double Endobutton construct with a commercially available cortical button system in both the axial and superior directions.
Controlled laboratory study.
Six matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities were anatomically dissected and prepared to simulate a complete AC joint dislocation. One side of each pair was reconstructed with the double Endobutton (DE) construct and other side with the dog bone button (DB) construct. The specimens were then tested using a materials testing machine, determining initial superior and axial displacements with a preload, and then cyclically loaded in the axial direction with 70 N for 5000 cycles. Displacement was again measured with the same preloads at fixed cycle intervals. The specimens were then loaded superiorly to failure.
At 5000 cycles, the mean axial displacement was 1.7 mm for the DB group and 1.2 mm for the DE group ( = .19), and the mean superior displacement was 1.1 mm for the DB group and 0.7 mm for the DE group ( = .32). Load at failure was similar (558 N for DE, 552 N for DB; = .96). There was no statistically significant difference in the modes of failure.
Biomechanical testing of both constructs showed similar fixation stability after cyclical axial loading and similar loads to failure.
The strength of both constructs after cyclical loading in the axial plane and load-to-failure testing in the superior plane validate their continued clinical use for achieving stability in AC joint reconstruction procedures.
尽管用于肩锁关节(AC)重建的多种缝线纽扣固定技术已通过向上方向的生物力学测试得到验证,但临床报告仍显示结构滑移和断裂的发生率很高。
比较一种新型闭环双Endobutton结构与市售皮质纽扣系统在轴向和向上方向的稳定性。
对照实验室研究。
对六对匹配的新鲜冷冻尸体上肢进行解剖并准备模拟完全性AC关节脱位。每对的一侧用双Endobutton(DE)结构重建,另一侧用犬骨纽扣(DB)结构重建。然后使用材料试验机对标本进行测试,通过预加载确定初始向上和轴向位移,然后在轴向以70 N循环加载5000次。在固定的循环间隔以相同的预加载再次测量位移。然后向上加载标本直至失效。
在5000次循环时,DB组的平均轴向位移为1.7 mm,DE组为1.2 mm(P = 0.19),DB组的平均向上位移为1.1 mm,DE组为0.7 mm(P = 0.32)。失效载荷相似(DE为558 N,DB为552 N;P = 0.96)。失效模式无统计学显著差异。
两种结构的生物力学测试显示,在循环轴向加载后固定稳定性相似,失效载荷也相似。
两种结构在轴向平面循环加载后以及在向上平面的失效载荷测试后的强度,验证了它们在AC关节重建手术中持续用于实现稳定性的临床应用价值。