Hand Team of Traumatology Institute of Santiago, Santiago, Chile.
Institut Kaplan, Barcelona, Spain.
Sci Prog. 2021 Jan-Mar;104(1):368504211000888. doi: 10.1177/00368504211000888.
Several open and arthroscopic techniques for repair triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tears have been used. The aim of this study, using a cadaveric model, was to compare the biomechanical resistance to the pronosupination movement of arthroscopic repair with anchor and pull-out techniques in TFCC tears of Atzei type II lesions. Eighteen forearms of cadaveric specimens were evaluated arthroscopically, of which 12 were selected according to the inclusion criteria. All specimens were injured with an Atzei type II lesion and were repaired arthroscopically. Six forearms were repaired using the anchor technique and the other six with the pull-out technique. To assess the biomechanical resistance of the repair, the forearms were tested to 300 cycles of 160° pronosupination. Two evaluators independently assessed the repair status every 10 cycles and the modified Desai classification was used to verify the presence of failure. The mean failure of the repair occurred at 41.6 cycles (SD 7.5) for the pull-out technique and at 28.3 cycles (SD 9.8) for the anchor technique, showing a difference of 13.3 cycles ( = 0.025) in favor of the pull-out technique. In all cases, repair failure occurred at the junction of the fibrocartilage with the suture. Arthroscopic repair with the pull-out technique showed greater biomechanical resistance to pronosupination movement in comparison to the anchor technique. Interestingly, the failure of arthroscopic repair of Atzei type II lesions occurs at the junction between the suture and the fibrocartilage.
已经使用了几种开放和关节镜技术来修复三角纤维软骨复合体 (TFCC) 撕裂。本研究旨在使用尸体模型,比较关节镜下锚钉和拉出技术修复 Atzei Ⅱ型 TFCC 撕裂的pronosupination 运动的生物力学阻力。评估了 18 个尸体标本的关节镜,其中 12 个符合纳入标准。所有标本均采用 Atzei Ⅱ型损伤进行损伤,并进行关节镜下修复。6 个前臂采用锚钉技术修复,另 6 个采用拉出技术修复。为了评估修复的生物力学阻力,在前臂上进行了 300 次 160°pronosupination 的测试。两名评估员每 10 次测试独立评估修复情况,并使用改良的 Desai 分类法验证是否存在失败。拉出技术的修复平均失效发生在 41.6 个循环(SD 7.5),而锚钉技术的修复平均失效发生在 28.3 个循环(SD 9.8),拉出技术的修复平均失效发生在 13.3 个循环( = 0.025)。在所有情况下,修复失败都发生在纤维软骨与缝线的交界处。与锚钉技术相比,拉出技术的关节镜修复对 pronosupination 运动具有更大的生物力学阻力。有趣的是,Atzei Ⅱ型病变的关节镜修复失败发生在缝线和纤维软骨的交界处。