4.5 Article

Gender-specific in vivo measurement of the structural and mechanical properties of the human patellar tendon

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 25, 期 12, 页码 1635-1642

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20404

关键词

gender; human patellar tendon; mechanical properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human patellar tendon stress (sigma), strain (epsilon), stiffness (K), and tensile or Young's modulus (E), are determined in vivo through voluntary isometric contractions monitored with B-mode ultrasonography. The limitations in previous studies are: (1) they have generally not accounted for the fact that the distal attachment of the patellar tendon (the tibial tuberosity) also displaces; thus, they have underestimated epsilon (and, hence, injury risk) while overestimating K, (2) no gender effect has been studied despite the fact that females are seen to have higher incidences of tendon-related injuries. The current investigation therefore aimed to determine the gender specific values of sigma, epsilon, K, and E of the patellar tendon while also accounting for distal displacement of the patellar tendon. Healthy young males (aged 23.1 +/- 1.3 years, n = 10) and females (aged 21.3 +/- 0.9 years, n = 10) were tested. The maximal v of the young males was similar to 5-10% higher than that reported in earlier literature. Average female versus male values for epsilon, sigma, K, and E, taken at the same force level as the males for comparison purposes, were respectively 10.6 +/- 1.0 versus 9.0 +/- 1.0%, 36.9 +/- 1.4 versus 28.9 +/- 0.9 MPa, 1053 +/- 108 versus 1652 +/- 216 N mm(-1), and 0.61 +/- 0.08 versus 0.68 +/- 0.10 GPa (p < 0.05). There are gender differences in tendon structural and mechanical properties. The current methodology may be useful in a clinical context where early prediction of injury risk and/or monitoring of reconstructed tendon needs to be an accurate, objective, and reliable method if optimal functionality is to be achieved. (C) 2007 Orthopaedic Research Society.

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

4.5
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