Biomechanical analysis of a double fixation method for tendon graft in porcine tibia – using an interference screw plus staple

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition) Pub Date : 2018-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rboe.2018.07.003

Luis Antônio de Ridder Bauer , Hermes Augusto Agottani Alberti , Vitor Gustavo de Paiva Corotti , Ana Paula Gebert de Oliveira Franco , Edmar Stieven Filho , Luiz Antônio Munhoz da Cunha

{"title":"Biomechanical analysis of a double fixation method for tendon graft in porcine tibia – using an interference screw plus staple","authors":"Luis Antônio de Ridder Bauer , Hermes Augusto Agottani Alberti , Vitor Gustavo de Paiva Corotti , Ana Paula Gebert de Oliveira Franco , Edmar Stieven Filho , Luiz Antônio Munhoz da Cunha","doi":"10.1016/j.rboe.2018.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of the study was to compare the mechanical behavior of interference screw tibial fixation <em>vs.</em> screw-plus-staple tibial fixation in an animal model.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty-six pieces of swine knee specimens were selected and divided into two groups: Group 1, tibial fixation with interference screw (<em>n</em>  =19). The models were submitted to a single cycle of tension testing. The following variables were measured: graft cross-sectional area, failure point on 10mm (<em>F</em><sub>10</sub>), yield load (<em>F</em><sub>y</sub>), and stiffness.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The mean values of graft cross-sectional area, <em>F</em><sub>10</sub>, <em>F</em><sub>y</sub>, and stiffness did not present significant differences between the groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The addition of a second staple-type ligament fixation device, complementing the interference screw, did not increase the mechanical safety of the system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101095,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)","volume":"53 5","pages":"Pages 564-569"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rboe.2018.07.003","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2255497118300922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the mechanical behavior of interference screw tibial fixation vs. screw-plus-staple tibial fixation in an animal model.

Methods

Thirty-six pieces of swine knee specimens were selected and divided into two groups: Group 1, tibial fixation with interference screw (n = 17), and Group 2, fixation with interference screw and staple (n = 19). The models were submitted to a single cycle of tension testing. The following variables were measured: graft cross-sectional area, failure point on 10 mm (F₁₀), yield load (F_y), and stiffness.

Results

The mean values of graft cross-sectional area, F₁₀, F_y, and stiffness did not present significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

The addition of a second staple-type ligament fixation device, complementing the interference screw, did not increase the mechanical safety of the system.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

猪胫骨肌腱移植双固定方法的生物力学分析-干涉螺钉加钉钉

目的在动物模型中比较干涉螺钉胫骨固定与螺钉加钉胫骨固定的力学行为。方法选择36例猪膝关节标本，分为两组:1组用过干涉螺钉固定胫骨17例，2组用过干涉螺钉钉固定胫骨19例。这些模型进行了单周期的拉力测试。测量了以下变量:接枝截面面积，10mm处的破坏点(F10)，屈服载荷(Fy)和刚度。结果两组间移植物截面积、F10、Fy、刚度平均值无显著性差异。结论在干涉螺钉的基础上增加第二钉型韧带固定装置并没有增加系统的机械安全性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

自引率

0.00%

发文量