4.5 Article

Mechanical properties during healing of Achilles tendon ruptures to predict final outcome: A pilot Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis in 10 patients

期刊

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-116

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There are presently few methods described for in vivo monitoring of the mechanics of healing human tendon ruptures, and no methods for prediction of clinical outcome. We tested if Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis ( RSA) can be used to follow the restoration of mechanical properties during healing of ruptured Achilles tendons, and if early measurements can predict clinical results. Methods: Achilles tendon repair was studied with RSA in 10 patients with a total rupture. Tantalum beads were implanted in conjunction with surgical repair. The patients were evaluated at 6, 12 and 18 weeks, and after 1 year. RSA was performed with two different mechanical loadings, and the strain induced by increasing load was measured. The transverse area was determined by ultrasound. CT scan at 12 weeks confirmed that the tantalum beads were located within the tendons. Functional testing was done after 1 year. A heel raise index was chosen as primary clinical outcome variable. Results: The strain was median 0.90, 0.32 and 0.14 percent per 100 N tendon force at 6 weeks, 18 weeks and one year respectively. The error of measurement was 0.04 percent units at 18 weeks. There was a large variation between patients, which appears to reflect biological variation. From 6 to 18 weeks, there was a negative correlation between increase in transverse area and increase in material properties, suggesting that healing is regulated at the organ level, to maximize stiffness. Modulus of elasticity during this time correlated with a heel raise index at one year ( Rho = 0.76; p = 0.02). Conclusion: We conclude that the RSA method might have potential for comparing different treatments of Achilles tendon ruptures.

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