Paul Kyle, Manfredi John N, Hargreaves Mathew, Messner Mitchell K, Rahaman Clay A, Ponce Brent, Momaya Amit M, Brabston Eugene
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, San Antonio, TX, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Birmingham, AL, USA.
J Orthop. 2024 Dec 24;66:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.12.021. eCollection 2025 Aug.
This study aims to compare the biomechanical performance of elastic and static suture-based cerclage systems to traditional screw constructs in the setting of modeled glenoid bony augmentation.
Biomechanical testing was conducted on polyurethane cellular foam blocks modeling a 20 % glenoid defect repaired with a coracoid graft. Constructs consisted of an elastic suture-based cerclage, static suture-based cerclage, and a two-screw construct. Biomechanical testing was performed on material testing system, using a 7-phase, 100 cycle per phase, 1Hz, sinusoidal cyclic loading protocol, following a stair-step pattern in load control. Failure for cyclic loading was assessed at 0.8 mm linear displacement. The absolute end level for load-to-failure was 7.0 mm.
Static suture-based cerclage failed at 5-50 N (Cycles 2 through 4), 2-screw constructs failed at 25-50 N (Cycle 4), and elastic suture-based cerclage failed at 100-200N (Cycles 6 and 7). Elastic cerclage exhibited superior performance compared to static cerclage beginning in Cycle 2 (p = 0.0440) and compared to SOC 2-screw construct beginning in Cycle 4 (p = 0.0118). 2-screw construct exhibited superior stability performance compared to static cerclage beginning in Cycle 3 (p = 0.0001). Elastic cerclage reached failure at 558.141 ± 4.508 N, while 2-screw construct and static cerclage reached failure at 422.009 ± 24.998 N and 366.770 ± 66.653 N, respectively. Elastic cerclage demonstrated superior biomechanical stability in load-at-failure performance to static cerclage (p < 0.0001) and the screw construct (p < 0.0001), while static cerclage demonstrated inferior biomechanical stability to the screw construct (p = 0.0343).
This biomechanical study comparing the performance of elastic cable and static suture tape cerclage fixation methods identified that the elastic cable cerclage exhibits a higher load-at-failure and less displacement under repetitive stress. In addition, elastic cable cerclage fixation exhibits greater strength and construct rigidity than traditional metal screw fixation.
本研究旨在比较弹性和静态缝线环扎系统与传统螺钉结构在模拟肩胛盂骨增强情况下的生物力学性能。
在模拟20%肩胛盂缺损并用喙突移植修复的聚氨酯泡沫块上进行生物力学测试。结构包括弹性缝线环扎、静态缝线环扎和双螺钉结构。在材料测试系统上进行生物力学测试,采用7个阶段、每个阶段100次循环、1Hz、正弦循环加载方案,遵循载荷控制的阶梯模式。循环加载失败的评估标准为线性位移0.8mm。失效的绝对终点水平为7.0mm。
静态缝线环扎在5 - 50N(第2至4个循环)时失效,双螺钉结构在25 - 50N(第4个循环)时失效,弹性缝线环扎在100 - 200N(第6和7个循环)时失效。从第2个循环开始,弹性环扎与静态环扎相比表现出更好的性能(p = 0.0440),从第4个循环开始与标准双螺钉结构相比也表现出更好的性能(p = 0.0118)。从第3个循环开始,双螺钉结构与静态环扎相比表现出更好的稳定性性能(p = 0.0001)。弹性环扎在558.141±4.508N时达到失效,而双螺钉结构和静态环扎分别在422.009±24.998N和366.770±66.653N时达到失效。弹性环扎在失效载荷性能方面表现出比静态环扎(p < 0.0001)和螺钉结构(p < 0.0001)更好的生物力学稳定性,而静态环扎表现出比螺钉结构更低的生物力学稳定性(p = 0.0343)。
这项比较弹性缆线和静态缝线带环扎固定方法性能的生物力学研究表明,弹性缆线环扎在失效载荷下更高且在重复应力下位移更小。此外,弹性缆线环扎固定比传统金属螺钉固定表现出更大的强度和结构刚度。