Non-screw glenoid augmentation constructs for shoulder instability with bone loss: A biomechanical assessment of static and elastic cerclage constructs

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Kyle Paul , John N. Manfredi , Mathew Hargreaves , Mitchell K. Messner , Clay A. Rahaman , Brent Ponce , Amit M. Momaya , Eugene Brabston
{"title":"Non-screw glenoid augmentation constructs for shoulder instability with bone loss: A biomechanical assessment of static and elastic cerclage constructs","authors":"Kyle Paul ,&nbsp;John N. Manfredi ,&nbsp;Mathew Hargreaves ,&nbsp;Mitchell K. Messner ,&nbsp;Clay A. Rahaman ,&nbsp;Brent Ponce ,&nbsp;Amit M. Momaya ,&nbsp;Eugene Brabston","doi":"10.1016/j.jor.2024.12.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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 &lt; 0.0001) and the screw construct (p &lt; 0.0001), while static cerclage demonstrated inferior biomechanical stability to the screw construct (p = 0.0343).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orthopaedics","volume":"66 ","pages":"Pages 1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X24004495","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
202
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedics aims to be a leading journal in orthopaedics and contribute towards the improvement of quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research work and review articles related to different aspects of orthopaedics including Arthroplasty, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, Trauma, Spine and Spinal deformities, Pediatric orthopaedics, limb reconstruction procedures, hand surgery, and orthopaedic oncology. It also publishes articles on continuing education, health-related information, case reports and letters to the editor. It is requested to note that the journal has an international readership and all submissions should be aimed at specifying something about the setting in which the work was conducted. Authors must also provide any specific reasons for the research and also provide an elaborate description of the results.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信