Biomechanical evaluation of posterolateral corner reconstruction with suture augmentation in a posterolateral corner and posterior cruciate ligament deficient knee model
Ajith Malige , Andrew Carbone , Dave T. Huang , Shrey Kanjiya , Omar Rahman , Michael Banffy , Melodie F. Metzger
{"title":"Biomechanical evaluation of posterolateral corner reconstruction with suture augmentation in a posterolateral corner and posterior cruciate ligament deficient knee model","authors":"Ajith Malige , Andrew Carbone , Dave T. Huang , Shrey Kanjiya , Omar Rahman , Michael Banffy , Melodie F. Metzger","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2025.106461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Posterolateral corner injuries are relatively uncommon but difficult to successfully treat. This study evaluates the biomechanical stability of a novel reconstruction technique utilizing suture augmentation and compare it to the traditional LaPrade technique.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight matched pairs of all-male cadaveric knees were divided into two groups: (1) Posterolateral corner reconstruction and (2) reconstruction with suture augmentation. Each knee was tested in 3 states sequentially in isolation: (1) intact, (2) deficient posterolateral corner+Posterior cruciate ligament, and (3) after posterolateral corner reconstruction or reconstruction with suture augmentation. Each knee was repeatedly tested by applying a 134 N posterior load, 10 Nm varus moment, and 5 Nm of external rotary moment at 0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees of flexion while rotation and displacement of the tibia relative to the femur were recorded.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Both reconstruction techniques restored posterior tibial displacement to levels that were less than the deficient state (<em>p</em> < 0.01) but greater than intact knees (<em>p</em> < 0.001). Suture augmentation recorded less posterior displacement compared to reconstruction alone (30<sup>o</sup> = −1.2 mm, 60<sup>o</sup> = −1.0 mm, 90<sup>o</sup> = −0.6, <em>p</em> < 0.01). Both techniques restored varus stability to intact levels at all flexion angles except at 90<sup>o</sup>. Suture augmentation allowed external rotation closer to intact values compared to reconstruction alone at all angles (0<sup>o</sup> = −3.7<sup>o</sup>, 30<sup>o</sup> = −4.8<sup>o</sup>, 60<sup>o</sup> = −6.0<sup>o</sup>, 90<sup>o</sup> = −5.3 <sup>o</sup>).”</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>At time zero, reconstruction with suture augmentation decreases knee external rotation compared to reconstruction alone. Both reconstruction techniques restored restraint to varus rotation back to intact levels at most flexion angles, while neither restored posterior translation back to intact levels.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50992,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Biomechanics","volume":"123 ","pages":"Article 106461"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003325000336","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Posterolateral corner injuries are relatively uncommon but difficult to successfully treat. This study evaluates the biomechanical stability of a novel reconstruction technique utilizing suture augmentation and compare it to the traditional LaPrade technique.
Methods
Eight matched pairs of all-male cadaveric knees were divided into two groups: (1) Posterolateral corner reconstruction and (2) reconstruction with suture augmentation. Each knee was tested in 3 states sequentially in isolation: (1) intact, (2) deficient posterolateral corner+Posterior cruciate ligament, and (3) after posterolateral corner reconstruction or reconstruction with suture augmentation. Each knee was repeatedly tested by applying a 134 N posterior load, 10 Nm varus moment, and 5 Nm of external rotary moment at 0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees of flexion while rotation and displacement of the tibia relative to the femur were recorded.
Findings
Both reconstruction techniques restored posterior tibial displacement to levels that were less than the deficient state (p < 0.01) but greater than intact knees (p < 0.001). Suture augmentation recorded less posterior displacement compared to reconstruction alone (30o = −1.2 mm, 60o = −1.0 mm, 90o = −0.6, p < 0.01). Both techniques restored varus stability to intact levels at all flexion angles except at 90o. Suture augmentation allowed external rotation closer to intact values compared to reconstruction alone at all angles (0o = −3.7o, 30o = −4.8o, 60o = −6.0o, 90o = −5.3 o).”
Interpretation
At time zero, reconstruction with suture augmentation decreases knee external rotation compared to reconstruction alone. Both reconstruction techniques restored restraint to varus rotation back to intact levels at most flexion angles, while neither restored posterior translation back to intact levels.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Biomechanics is an international multidisciplinary journal of biomechanics with a focus on medical and clinical applications of new knowledge in the field.
The science of biomechanics helps explain the causes of cell, tissue, organ and body system disorders, and supports clinicians in the diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of treatment methods and technologies. Clinical Biomechanics aims to strengthen the links between laboratory and clinic by publishing cutting-edge biomechanics research which helps to explain the causes of injury and disease, and which provides evidence contributing to improved clinical management.
A rigorous peer review system is employed and every attempt is made to process and publish top-quality papers promptly.
Clinical Biomechanics explores all facets of body system, organ, tissue and cell biomechanics, with an emphasis on medical and clinical applications of the basic science aspects. The role of basic science is therefore recognized in a medical or clinical context. The readership of the journal closely reflects its multi-disciplinary contents, being a balance of scientists, engineers and clinicians.
The contents are in the form of research papers, brief reports, review papers and correspondence, whilst special interest issues and supplements are published from time to time.
Disciplines covered include biomechanics and mechanobiology at all scales, bioengineering and use of tissue engineering and biomaterials for clinical applications, biophysics, as well as biomechanical aspects of medical robotics, ergonomics, physical and occupational therapeutics and rehabilitation.