4.3 Article

Biomechanical Effects of Loop Thickness in ACL Graft: A Simulation Study

出版社

KOREAN SOC PRECISION ENG
DOI: 10.1007/s12541-021-00609-8

关键词

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Button-loop cortical suspension device; Contact stress; Knee stability

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2017 R1D1A3B04033410]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on the effects of loop thickness on the graft contact region in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Through experiments and simulation modeling, it was concluded that loops with a thickness >= 3.0 mm are recommended for ACL reconstruction based on considerations of elongation and contact stress.
A cortical suspension device that combines a loop and a button is used widely for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Although various biomechanical studies using these devices have been conducted, relatively few have explored the biomechanics of the wire-graft contact region depending on the thickness of the loop wire. In this study, the effects of loop thickness on the graft contact region were tested, and the recommended loop thickness was analyzed by constructing a simulation model to reflect this effect. Five groups of specimens were prepared by combining 50 porcine tendons and loop wires with thicknesses ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 mm at 0.5-mm intervals, and the elongation and hardness changes in the contact region were measured and recorded. In addition, the maximum stress on the graft was analyzed by a computer simulation model based on the biomechanical test results. Statistically significant elongation and contact hardening occurred in the thin loop wires <= 3.0 mm. In addition, larger amounts of contact stress were found for loops with a thickness <= 2.5 mm. In consideration of elongation and contact stress, loops with a thickness >= 3.0 mm are recommended for ACL reconstruction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据