Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Congress Medical Foundation, Pasadena, CA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Congress Medical Foundation, Pasadena, CA; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Inselspital Bern, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
J Hand Surg Am. 2020 Oct;45(10):985.e1-985.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.03.017. Epub 2020 May 17.
Internal bracing (IB) is an augmentation method using high-strength nonabsorbable tape. This study compared scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) repair alone, SLIL repair with IB augmentation (RIBA), and native intact SLIL (NIS) in a biomechanical cadaveric model.
We used 21 specimens of fresh-frozen wrists in this study (7 matched pairs, SLIL repair-only and SLIL RIBA groups; and 7 independent fresh-frozen wrists, NIS group). In the SLIL RIBA group, augmentation using IB was performed after the repair. The specimens were preloaded and cyclically loaded in tension. Maximum extension and hysteresis were measured in all specimens. The specimens were subsequently tested for load to failure. Failure load (yield point load, mean ultimate load, and load at clinical failure) and linear stiffness were calculated.
In cyclic tensile testing, RIBA showed lower maximum extension and lower hysteresis than repair alone. In load to failure testing, the yield point load was statistically higher in the RIBA (59.3 N) group than in the repair-only (30.4 N) group but showed no significant difference compared with the NIS (90.7 N) groups. Moreover, the RIBA (98.5 N) group showed higher and lower mean ultimate loads than the repair-only (37.7 N) and NIS (211.8 N) groups, respectively. Load at clinical failure was higher with RIBA than with repair alone (3-mm extension: 70.0 vs 26.4 N; 4-mm extension: 84.1 vs 33.4 N). Repair alone and RIBA had comparable linear stiffness (38.2 vs 44.1 N/mm).
Although SLIL RIBA did not recreate biomechanical properties equivalent to those of NIS, it demonstrated a significantly higher strength than repair alone.
Repair with IB augmentation could serve as a novel surgical technique that enhances SLIL direct repair through biomechanical support.
内置支撑(IB)是一种使用高强度不可吸收胶带的增强方法。本研究比较了单纯舟月骨间韧带(SLIL)修复、SLIL 修复联合 IB 增强(RIBA)和正常完整的 SLIL(NIS)在生物力学尸体模型中的效果。
本研究使用了 21 个新鲜冷冻腕关节标本(7 对匹配,SLIL 修复组和 SLIL RIBA 组;7 个独立的新鲜冷冻腕关节,NIS 组)。在 SLIL RIBA 组,修复后进行 IB 增强。标本进行预加载和循环拉伸加载。所有标本均测量最大拉伸和滞后。随后对标本进行失效负载测试。计算失效负载(屈服点负载、平均极限负载和临床失效时的负载)和线性刚度。
在循环拉伸测试中,RIBA 组的最大拉伸和滞后均低于单独修复组。在失效负载测试中,RIBA 组的屈服点负载(59.3 N)显著高于单独修复组(30.4 N),但与 NIS 组(90.7 N)无显著差异。此外,RIBA 组的平均极限负载高于单独修复组(37.7 N)和 NIS 组(211.8 N),而 RIBA 组的平均极限负载低于 NIS 组。临床失效时的负载,RIBA 组高于单独修复组(3mm 拉伸:70.0 vs 26.4 N;4mm 拉伸:84.1 vs 33.4 N)。单独修复和 RIBA 的线性刚度相当(38.2 vs 44.1 N/mm)。
尽管 SLIL RIBA 并未重建等效于 NIS 的生物力学特性,但它显示出明显高于单独修复的强度。
IB 增强修复可以作为一种新的手术技术,通过生物力学支撑增强 SLIL 直接修复。