internal bracing
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

62
(FIVE YEARS 36)

H-INDEX

13
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 201-208
Author(s):  
Andre Anvari ◽  
Amir Fathi ◽  
Ioanna K Bolia ◽  
Eric Piatt ◽  
Laith K Hasan ◽  
...  

Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (38) ◽  
pp. e26827
Author(s):  
Soo-Hwan Kang ◽  
Seungbum Chae ◽  
Jongmin Kim ◽  
Jiwon Lee ◽  
Il-Jung Park

Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayman W Taher ◽  
Cody J Falls ◽  
Paul S Page ◽  
James A Stadler
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 3948
Author(s):  
Dawid Szwedowski ◽  
Łukasz Paczesny ◽  
Jan Zabrzyński ◽  
Maciej Gagat ◽  
Marcin Domżalski ◽  
...  

Background: The current standard of treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is reconstruction (ACLR). This technique has some disadvantages: poor proprioception, donor site morbidity and the inability to restore joint kinematics. ACL repair could be an alternative treatment. The purpose of the study was to compare the stability and the function after ACL primary repair versus single-bundle ACLR. Methods: In a retrospective study, 12 patients underwent primary ACL repair with internal bracing, 15 patients underwent standard ACLR. Follow-up examinations were evaluated at up to 2 years postoperatively. One patient in the ACL repair group was lost to follow-up due to re-rupture. The absolute value of anterior tibial translation (ATT) and the side-to-side difference in the same patient (ΔATT) were evaluated using the GNRB arthrometer. The Lysholm knee scoring was obtained. Re-ruptures and other complications were recorded. Results: Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was significantly decreased in the ACL repair group compared with the ACLR group (5.31 mm vs. 7.18 mm, respectively; p = 0.0137). Arthrometric measurements demonstrated a mean side-to-side difference (ΔATT) 1.87 (range 0.2 to 4.9) mm significantly decreased compared to ACLR 3.36 (range 1.2–5.6 mm; p = 0.0107). The mean Lysholm score was 85.3 points in the ACL repair group and 89.9 in ACLR group. No significant differences between ACL repair and ACLR were found for the Lysholm score. There was no association between AP laxity and clinical outcomes. There were two complications in the internal bracing group: one patient had re-rupture and was treated by ACLR, another had limited extension and had arthroscopic debridement. Conclusions: Anterior tibial translation was significantly decreased after ACL repair. Additionally, the functional results after ACL repair with internal bracing were comparable with those after ACLR. It should be noted that the two complications occurred. The current study supports further development of ACL repair techniques.


2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110329
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Wu ◽  
Jamie L. Kator ◽  
Michael Zarro ◽  
Natalie L. Leong

Context: Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is among the most common orthopaedic injuries, and reconstruction of a ruptured ACL is a common orthopaedic procedure. In general, surgical intervention is necessary to restore stability to the injured knee, and to prevent meniscal damage. Along with surgery, intense postoperative physical therapy is needed to restore function to the injured extremity. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been the standard of care in recent decades, and advances in surgical technology have reintroduced the prospect of augmented primary repair of the native ACL via a variety of methods. Evidence Acquisition: A search of PubMed database of articles and reviews available in English was performed through 2020. The search terms ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament repair, bridge enhanced acl repair, suture anchor repair, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal bracing, suture ligament augmentation, and internal brace ligament augmentation were used. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: No exact consensus exists on effective rehabilitation protocols after ACL repair techniques, as the variation in published protocols seem even greater than the variation in those for ACLR. For some techniques such as internal bracing and dynamic interligamentary stabilization, it is likely permissible for the patients to progress to full weightbearing and discontinue bracing sooner. However, caution should be applied with regard to earlier return to sport than after ACLR as to minimize risk for retear. Conclusion: More research is needed to address how physical therapies must adapt to these innovative repair techniques. Until that is accomplished, we recommend that physical therapists understand the differences among the various ACL surgery techniques discussed here and work with the surgeons to develop a rehabilitation protocol for their mutual patients. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): C.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Ellwein ◽  
Helmut Lill ◽  
Tomas Smith ◽  
Rony-Orijit DeyHazra ◽  
Mara Warnhoff ◽  
...  

AbstractInternal bracing is an augmentation of ligament repair or reconstruction using a non-absorbable suture tape. The suture reinforcement of the ligament is intended to absorb the forces applied to the joint while the ligament repair or reconstruction underneath is healing. The rigidity of the construct is expected to improve primary stability, which should facilitate and accelerate postoperative mobilization and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, internal bracing is a novel treatment and data is limited. Therefore, this review describes the surgical techniques and provides an overview of the current literature regarding acute and chronic instabilities of the medial and lateral elbow treated with internal bracing.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liangwen Wang ◽  
Shizhao Zhang ◽  
Ruolan Wang ◽  
Jie Liu ◽  
Yangguang Kong ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document