Fixation Devices in ACL Surgery: What Do I Need to Know?

Orthopedics ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 920-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuj C Singhal ◽  
Brandon S Fites ◽  
Darren L Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Friction ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaogang Zhang ◽  
Yali Zhang ◽  
Zhongmin Jin

AbstractNumerous medical devices have been applied for the treatment or alleviation of various diseases. Tribological issues widely exist in those medical devices and play vital roles in determining their performance and service life. In this review, the bio-tribological issues involved in commonly used medical devices are identified, including artificial joints, fracture fixation devices, skin-related devices, dental restoration devices, cardiovascular devices, and surgical instruments. The current understanding of the bio-tribological behavior and mechanism involved in those devices is summarized. Recent advances in the improvement of tribological properties are examined. Challenges and future developments for the prospective of bio-tribological performance are highlighted.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011419S0003
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hunt ◽  
Shanthan Challa ◽  
Pieter D’Hooghe ◽  
Pam Kumparatana ◽  
Phinit Phisitkul ◽  
...  

Category: Ankle, Sports Introduction/Purpose: There exists little consensus regarding optimal treatment protocols for syndesmotic injuries. Orthopaedic clinicians have implemented a variety of treatment strategies, ranging from immobilization to screw fixation to new flexible fixation devices. While the body of literature is growing with regard to both the biomechanics and clinical outcomes for various constructs and rehabilitation protocols, there is little consensus on the optimal treatment and return to sport strategy for these injuries. We endeavored to assess current approaches to syndesmotic injures by orthopedic foot and ankle specialists around the world in 6 athlete scenarios with increasing degree of injury. Commensurate with the lack of available data to guide treatments, we hypothesize that there will be variability in the treatment and management strategies for syndesmotic injuries. Methods: A REDcap survey was created with 27 questions, including respondent demographics, indications for treatment of syndesmotic injuries, preferred treatment, preferred technique for repairing the syndesmosis and post-operative management. Respondents were asked to choose their preferred fixation device and post-operative return to play protocols in six different athlete scenarios (moderate impact, high impact and very high impact and each with/without complete deltoid injury). The survey was disseminated among the memberships of 18 North American and International medical societies. Society members were surveyed via three emails disseminated 2 weeks apart. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for all categorical responses. Results: A total of 596 providers responded to the survey, including 337 American surgeons and 259 members of various international societies. There was a 70% survey completion rate with a wide geographic distribution among respondents. Flexible devices were the preferred fixation construct (48.1%), followed by screws (27.5%), hybrid fixation (18.5%) and other (5.9%). There was a higher preference for flexible devices among sports medicine trained providers. 62% of respondents noted that their rehabilitation protocols would not change for each athlete scenario. Considerable variability was present in anticipated full return to sport, ranging from immediately following injury to 6 months post-op (Fig 1). One-third of respondents indicated that they repair the deltoid greater than 50% of the time when injured. Conclusion: We found a wide variety of indications and treatment constructs employed by orthopaedic surgeons for athletes with ligamentous syndesmotic injuries requiring fixation. Although, flexible fixation devices are the preferred among all respondents but there was a considerable variability in device choices. Fellowship training also appears to affect the preferred fixation device choice. There also exists substantial variability in expected return to play for every athlete scenario (Fig 1). The diversity in approaches and post-operative recommendations underscores the need for evidence-based guidelines to inform management of syndesmotic injuries.


Author(s):  
Samir Zahaf ◽  
Said Kebdani

Orthopedic fixation devices are widely used in treatment of spinal diseases. It is expected that application of dynamic stabilization confers valuable movement possibility besides its main role of load bearing. Comparative investigation between pedicle screw model rigid fixation and (B Dyne, Elaspine, Bioflex, Coflexe rivet) models dynamic fixation systems may elucidate the efficacy of each design. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of five fixation systems mounted on L4-L5 motion segment. In this numerical study, a 3D precious model of L4, L5 and their intervertebral disc has been employed based on CT images. five fixation devices have been also implanted internally to the motion segment. Finite element method was used to evaluate stress distribution in the disc and determine the overall displacement of the segment as a measure of movement possibility. The results show that The Coflex rivet implantation can provide stability in all motions and reduce disc annulus stress at the surgical segment (L4-L5), on the other hand, Maximum stress in the disc has been observed in dynamic systems but within the safe range. The greater movement of the motion segment has been also appeared in dynamic fixations. Existence of the fixation systems reduced the stress on the intervertebral disc which might be exerted in intact cases. Use of the fixation devices can considerably reduce the load on the discs and prepare conditions for healing of the injured ones. Furthermore, dynamic modes of fixation confer possibility of movement to the motion segments in order to facilitate the spinal activities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document