Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 6;9(1):1488. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38150-w.
The aim of this study was to measure and compare the biomechanical properties of two different graft link preparation techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. We hypothesised that there would be differences in elongation, load at failure and failure mode due to the different graft link preparation techniques. Thirty fresh-frozen anatomical specimen knees were used. Both tendons (semitendinosus and gracilis) were harvested and randomly assigned to two groups. Graft links prepared with a continuous loop technique were allocated to group 1, whereas those prepared with a buried-knot technique were allocated to group 2. The mechanical properties of both techniques were measured. A mean load to failure of 731 N and an overall graft elongation of 6 mm was found in the continuous loop group. In the buried-knot group, a higher load to failure (848 N) and a lower mean overall elongation (5 mm) was found. The buried-knot technique showed better results with significantly higher load to failure and significantly less elongation compared to the continuous loop technique. It is essential in clinical practice to choose the most accurate technique for graft link preparation to ensure graft stability, especially in the early phase of recovery.
本研究旨在测量和比较两种不同的前交叉韧带重建移植物连接准备技术的生物力学特性。我们假设由于不同的移植物连接准备技术，会存在伸长、破坏时的载荷和破坏模式的差异。本研究使用了 30 个新鲜冷冻的解剖标本膝关节。将两条肌腱（半腱肌和股薄肌）采集并随机分配到两组。采用连续环技术制备的移植物连接被分配到第 1 组，而采用埋藏结技术制备的移植物连接被分配到第 2 组。对两种技术的力学性能进行了测量。在连续环组中，破坏时的平均载荷为 731N，整体移植物伸长为 6mm。在埋藏结组中，破坏时的载荷更高（848N），整体平均伸长率更低（5mm）。与连续环技术相比，埋藏结技术具有更好的效果，表现为破坏时的载荷显著更高，伸长率显著更低。在临床实践中，选择最准确的移植物连接准备技术至关重要，以确保移植物的稳定性，特别是在恢复的早期阶段。
