在用于前十字韧带重建的股四头肌肌腱移植物生物力学模型中,鞭状缝合和锁定缝合在三种缝合系统中显示出相同的伸长率和破坏载荷

Q3 Medicine
Miguel A. Diaz M.S. , Eric A. Branch M.D. , Jacob G. Dunn D.O. , Anthony Brothers M.D. , Steve E. Jordan M.D.
{"title":"在用于前十字韧带重建的股四头肌肌腱移植物生物力学模型中,鞭状缝合和锁定缝合在三种缝合系统中显示出相同的伸长率和破坏载荷","authors":"Miguel A. Diaz M.S. ,&nbsp;Eric A. Branch M.D. ,&nbsp;Jacob G. Dunn D.O. ,&nbsp;Anthony Brothers M.D. ,&nbsp;Steve E. Jordan M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the biomechanical properties of quadriceps tendon (QT) graft stitch methods using 3 different suture systems for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 48 QTs were harvested from cadaveric knee specimens (age: 73 ± 7 years; range, 66-86 years). Samples were randomly divided into 3 groups where different suture needle systems were used to create 2 stitch methods: whipstitch (WS) and locking stitch (LS). Surgeons performed each technique to 5 stitches, each 0.5 cm apart. Stitching time was recorded. Samples were preconditioned and then underwent cyclic loading, followed by load to failure. Stiffness (N/mm), ultimate failure load (N), peak-to-peak displacement (mm), elongation (mm), and failure displacement (mm) were recorded.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>WS and LS were equivalent across stiffness, ultimate load, and peak-to-peak displacement within groups 2 and 3. In group 1, the LS was stiffer than the WS, but the WS achieved a higher ultimate load. For all groups, the LS achieved lower elongation and failure displacement than the WS, with significant differences in groups 1 and 2. Within each stitching method, equivalence was determined for total elongation and ultimate failure load for all 3 suture system groups. For WS samples, group 1 all failed from suture breakage, and both groups 2 and 3 had instances of failure from suture pull-through. All LS samples failed from suture breakage.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Both LS and WS provide adequate mechanical properties in each of the 3 suture systems. Differences in performance do exist; however, each method shows equivalent total elongation and ultimate failure load for all 3 suture systems. LS may be preferred over WS due to lower mean elongation and failure displacement.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><div>There is an increased use of QT grafts in for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. However, there have been a limited number of studies comparing various stitching methods and optimizing techniques for QT graft fixation. This study may provide important information to surgeons about which suture techniques have better biomechanical profiles.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34631,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":"6 5","pages":"Article 100968"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whipstitch and Locking Stitch Show Equivalent Elongation and Load to Failure Across 3 Suture Systems in a Biomechanical Model of Quadriceps Tendon Grafts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction\",\"authors\":\"Miguel A. Diaz M.S. ,&nbsp;Eric A. Branch M.D. ,&nbsp;Jacob G. Dunn D.O. ,&nbsp;Anthony Brothers M.D. ,&nbsp;Steve E. Jordan M.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100968\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the biomechanical properties of quadriceps tendon (QT) graft stitch methods using 3 different suture systems for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 48 QTs were harvested from cadaveric knee specimens (age: 73 ± 7 years; range, 66-86 years). Samples were randomly divided into 3 groups where different suture needle systems were used to create 2 stitch methods: whipstitch (WS) and locking stitch (LS). Surgeons performed each technique to 5 stitches, each 0.5 cm apart. Stitching time was recorded. Samples were preconditioned and then underwent cyclic loading, followed by load to failure. Stiffness (N/mm), ultimate failure load (N), peak-to-peak displacement (mm), elongation (mm), and failure displacement (mm) were recorded.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>WS and LS were equivalent across stiffness, ultimate load, and peak-to-peak displacement within groups 2 and 3. In group 1, the LS was stiffer than the WS, but the WS achieved a higher ultimate load. For all groups, the LS achieved lower elongation and failure displacement than the WS, with significant differences in groups 1 and 2. Within each stitching method, equivalence was determined for total elongation and ultimate failure load for all 3 suture system groups. For WS samples, group 1 all failed from suture breakage, and both groups 2 and 3 had instances of failure from suture pull-through. All LS samples failed from suture breakage.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Both LS and WS provide adequate mechanical properties in each of the 3 suture systems. Differences in performance do exist; however, each method shows equivalent total elongation and ultimate failure load for all 3 suture systems. LS may be preferred over WS due to lower mean elongation and failure displacement.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><div>There is an increased use of QT grafts in for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. However, there have been a limited number of studies comparing various stitching methods and optimizing techniques for QT graft fixation. This study may provide important information to surgeons about which suture techniques have better biomechanical profiles.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"6 5\",\"pages\":\"Article 100968\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24000956\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24000956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较使用 3 种不同缝合系统进行前交叉韧带重建的股四头肌腱(QT)移植缝合方法的生物力学特性。方法从尸体膝关节标本(年龄:73 ± 7 岁;范围:66-86 岁)中获取 48 块 QT。样本被随机分为 3 组,使用不同的缝合针系统进行 2 种缝合方法:鞭状缝合(WS)和锁定缝合(LS)。外科医生采用每种技术缝合 5 针,每针间距 0.5 厘米。记录缝合时间。对样本进行预处理,然后进行循环加载,最后加载至失效。记录了刚度(牛顿/毫米)、极限破坏荷载(牛顿)、峰-峰位移(毫米)、伸长率(毫米)和破坏位移(毫米)。在第 2 组和第 3 组中,ResultsWS 和 LS 在刚度、极限荷载和峰-峰位移方面相当。在第 1 组中,LS 的硬度高于 WS,但 WS 达到的极限载荷更高。在所有组别中,LS 的伸长率和破坏位移均低于 WS,但在第 1 组和第 2 组中差异显著。在每种缝合方法中,确定了所有 3 组缝合系统的总伸长率和极限破坏载荷相等。对于 WS 样品,第 1 组全部因缝线断裂而失效,第 2 组和第 3 组均有缝线拉穿失效的情况。所有 LS 样品均因缝线断裂而失效。两种方法的性能确实存在差异,但在所有 3 种缝合系统中,每种方法都显示出相同的总伸长率和最终失效载荷。由于平均伸长率和失效位移较低,LS 可能比 WS 更受青睐。然而,比较各种缝合方法和优化 QT 移植物固定技术的研究数量有限。这项研究可为外科医生提供重要信息,让他们了解哪种缝合技术具有更好的生物力学特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Whipstitch and Locking Stitch Show Equivalent Elongation and Load to Failure Across 3 Suture Systems in a Biomechanical Model of Quadriceps Tendon Grafts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

To compare the biomechanical properties of quadriceps tendon (QT) graft stitch methods using 3 different suture systems for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Methods

A total of 48 QTs were harvested from cadaveric knee specimens (age: 73 ± 7 years; range, 66-86 years). Samples were randomly divided into 3 groups where different suture needle systems were used to create 2 stitch methods: whipstitch (WS) and locking stitch (LS). Surgeons performed each technique to 5 stitches, each 0.5 cm apart. Stitching time was recorded. Samples were preconditioned and then underwent cyclic loading, followed by load to failure. Stiffness (N/mm), ultimate failure load (N), peak-to-peak displacement (mm), elongation (mm), and failure displacement (mm) were recorded.

Results

WS and LS were equivalent across stiffness, ultimate load, and peak-to-peak displacement within groups 2 and 3. In group 1, the LS was stiffer than the WS, but the WS achieved a higher ultimate load. For all groups, the LS achieved lower elongation and failure displacement than the WS, with significant differences in groups 1 and 2. Within each stitching method, equivalence was determined for total elongation and ultimate failure load for all 3 suture system groups. For WS samples, group 1 all failed from suture breakage, and both groups 2 and 3 had instances of failure from suture pull-through. All LS samples failed from suture breakage.

Conclusions

Both LS and WS provide adequate mechanical properties in each of the 3 suture systems. Differences in performance do exist; however, each method shows equivalent total elongation and ultimate failure load for all 3 suture systems. LS may be preferred over WS due to lower mean elongation and failure displacement.

Clinical Relevance

There is an increased use of QT grafts in for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. However, there have been a limited number of studies comparing various stitching methods and optimizing techniques for QT graft fixation. This study may provide important information to surgeons about which suture techniques have better biomechanical profiles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
218
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
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