scholarly journals A BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF MATCHED FOUR-STRAND AND FIVE-STRAND SEMITENDINOSUS-GRACILIS GRAFTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 578-581
Author(s):  
Marcos Amstalden Barros ◽  
Sandokan Cavalcante Costa ◽  
Diego Eduardo Rubio Jaramillo ◽  
Adriano Marques de Almeida ◽  
Cesar Augusto Martins Pereira ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Introduction: Recent studies have shown that the likelihood of semitendinosus-gracilis graft rupture is inversely correlated to its diameter. A graft can be prepared in a five-strand or four-strand fashion to increase its diameter. However, the biomechanical superiority of five-strand semitendinosus-gracilis grafts is still under debate. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of matched four-strand and five-strand human semitendinosus-gracilis grafts. Methods: We evaluated semitendinosus-gracilis tendons harvested from ten fresh human male and female cadavers, aged 18-60 years. Four-strand or five-strand grafts were prepared with the tendons and fixed to wooden tunnels with interference screws. Each graft was submitted to axial traction at 20 mm/min until rupture; the tests were donor matched. Data were recorded in real time and included the analysis of the area, diameter, force, maximum deformation and stiffness of the grafts. Results: The diameter, area and tunnel size were significantly greater in the five-strand grafts than in the four-strand grafts. There were no significant differences in biomechanical properties. The area and diameter of the graft were positively correlated to stiffness, and inversely correlated to elasticity. There was no significant correlation between graft size and maximum force at failure, maximum deformation or maximum tension. Conclusion: Five-strand hamstring grafts have greater area, diameter and tunnel size than four-strand grafts. There were no significant differences in biomechanical properties. In this model using interference screw fixation, the increases in area and diameter were correlated with an increase in stiffness and a decrease in elasticity. Level of evidence V; biomechanical study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (02) ◽  
pp. 112-116
Author(s):  
Brian Bufkin ◽  
Alan Litsky ◽  
Matthew Barnhart

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of four different methods of artificial cranial cruciate ligament fixation in canine cadaveric tibias and femurs. Methods Femurs and tibias from skeletally mature large breed canine cadavers were assigned into four fixation groups: group 1, 4.5-mm interference screw (IS); group 2, 4.5-mm IS and 4.0-mm screw and spiked washer (SW); group 3, 5.0-mm IS; group 4, 5.0-mm IS + SW. Results The mean ultimate load was significantly greater for femur fixations than for tibias, when a SW was added, and for 5.0-mm IS compared with 4.5-mm sizes. There was also a significant interaction between SW and IS size. A SW significantly increased stiffness, a 5.0-mm IS in femurs provided more stiffness than 4.5-mm IS and was greater than 5.0-mm IS in tibias. In tibias, a 4.5-mm IS was stiffer than a 5.0-mm IS and a 4.5 IS + SW had greater stiffness than a 5.0-mm IS + SW. Groups 1 to 3 and tibias in group 4 failed by artificial ligament pullout. Nine femurs in group 4 failed by fracture, 5 by artificial ligament pullout, and 1 by artificial ligament tearing. Clinical Significance A 5.0-mm IS + SW provided superior artificial ligament fixation strength in femurs and tibias compared with a 4.5-mm IS without SW. Overall, artificial ligament fixation with 5.0-mm IS in femurs had the mechanical characteristics that most closely matched those reported in normal canine cranial cruciate ligaments.


2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maj Mark A. Slabaugh ◽  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Geoffrey S. Van Thiel ◽  
Rebecca M. Bell ◽  
Vincent M. Wang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Eras ◽  
Josefine Graffunder ◽  
Norus Ahmed ◽  
Jan C. Brune

Abstract Purpose Meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) is a possible treatment for patients suffering with pain after meniscectomy. Here, peracetic acid (PAA) sterilised meniscus transplants were investigated on whether they would provide an adequate alternative to fresh-frozen transplants in their viscoelastic and mechanical properties. Methods In this analysis, 31 menisci donors (26 male and 5 female) were included. The average donor age was 49.87 years, ranging from 32 to 65 years. Menisci of matched pairs of knees underwent chemical sterilisation while counterparts were left fresh-frozen. Stiffness and load to failure were determined via suture retention. Further menisci were analysed while attached to the tibial bone block using a novel test device to mimic physiological load distribution. Meniscus relaxation, stiffness and failure loads were determined. Histology and biphasic properties of the menisci were examined and results were analysed using paired t-tests. Results A novel custom built test device allowed the application of physiological loads for suture retention testing and revealed no significant differences between PAA sterilised (14.85 ± 4.46 N/mm, 50.49 ± 17.01 N) and fresh-frozen (18.26 ± 4.46 N/mm, 59.49 ± 21.07 N) regarding stiffness and failure load, respectively. Furthermore, initial 200 N loading showed significantly higher strain in sterilised menisci (18.87 ± 1.56) compared to fresh frozen (13.81 ± 1.04). Load relaxation experiments demonstrated significantly lower relaxation for sterilised menisci (77.71 ± 1.62) compared to fresh-frozen (89.11 ± 1.00, p-value < 0.0001). Conclusion Peracetic acid sterilised human menisci performed equally to fresh-frozen counterparts in a suture retention test and in physiological failure testing providing an adequate alternative. However, meniscus relaxation, biphasic properties and strain were shown to be significantly different between the groups. A common problem of MAT is graft extrusion or shrinkage, therefore the parameters measured here should be considered and may influence meniscus extrusion after transplantation. Level of evidence n/a (experimental study)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document