Ryu Dong Jin, Kwon Kyeu Back, Hong Da Hee, Park Sang Jun, Park Jae Sung, Wang Joon Ho
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, South Korea.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Samsungbon Hospital, Osan, Korea.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Feb 3;22(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-03955-w.
With the developments in the arthroscopic technique, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant-preserving reconstruction is gradually gaining attention with respect to improving proprioception and enhancing early revascularization of the graft. To evaluate the mechanical pull-out strength of three different methods for remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction.
Twenty-seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used in this study. Each knee was dissected to isolate the femoral attachment of ACL and cut the attachment. An MTS tensile testing machine with dual-screw fixation clamp with 30° flexion angle was used. The 27 specimens were tested after applying re-tensioning sutures with No. 0 polydioxanone (PDS), using the single stitch (n = 9), loop stitch (n = 9), and triple stitch (n = 9) methods. We measured the mode of failure, defined as (1) ligament failure (longitudinal splitting of the remnant ACL) or (2) suture failure (tearing of the PDS stitch); load-to-failure strength; and stiffness for the three methods. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the variance of load-to-failure strength and stiffness among the three groups.
Ligament failure occurred in all cases in the single stitch group and in all but one case in the triple stitch group. Suture failure occurred in all cases in the loop stitch group and in one case in the triple stitch group. The load-to-failure strength was significantly higher with loop stich (91.52 ± 8.19 N) and triple stitch (111.1 ± 18.15 N) than with single stitch (43.79 ± 11.54 N) (p = 0.002). With respect to stiffness, triple stitch (2.50 ± 0.37 N/mm) yielded significantly higher stiffness than the other methods (p = 0.001).
The results suggested that loop stitch or triple stitch would be a better option for increasing the mechanical strength when applying remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction during ACL reconstruction.
随着关节镜技术的发展,保留前交叉韧带(ACL)残端的重建术在改善本体感觉和促进移植物早期血管化方面逐渐受到关注。本研究旨在评估ACL重建术中三种不同的保留残端和重新张紧重建方法的机械拔出强度。
本研究使用了27个成年猪的新鲜膝关节。每个膝关节均进行解剖以分离ACL的股骨附着点并切断该附着点。使用带有30°屈曲角度的双螺杆固定夹的MTS拉伸试验机。27个标本在使用0号聚二氧六环酮(PDS)进行重新张紧缝合后进行测试,分别采用单缝合法(n = 9)、环缝合法(n = 9)和三缝合法(n = 9)。我们测量了失效模式,定义为:(1)韧带失效(残端ACL纵向裂开)或(2)缝线失效(PDS缝线撕裂);失效载荷强度;以及三种方法的刚度。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney U检验比较三组之间失效载荷强度和刚度的差异。
单缝合法组所有病例均发生韧带失效,三缝合法组除1例以外的所有病例均发生韧带失效。环缝合法组所有病例均发生缝线失效,三缝合法组有1例发生缝线失效。环缝合法(91.52±8.19 N)和三缝合法(111.1±18.15 N)的失效载荷强度显著高于单缝合法(43.79±11.54 N)(p = 0.002)。在刚度方面,三缝合法(2.50±0.37 N/mm)产生的刚度显著高于其他方法(p = 0.001)。
结果表明,在ACL重建术中应用保留残端和重新张紧重建时,环缝合法或三缝合法在增加机械强度方面是更好的选择。