4.3 Article

The effect of graft stiffness on knee joint biomechanics after ACL reconstruction - a 3D computational simulation

期刊

CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 35-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0268-0033(02)00137-7

关键词

anterior cruciate ligament; knee; biomechanics; computational model; kinematics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The objective was to determine the effect of varying graft stiffness and initial graft tension on knee kinematics and graft tension after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Design. A 3D computational knee model was used. Background. Many factors influencing the biomechanical outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have been investigated. However, there are no reports on the effect of variations in graft stiffness on knee behavior. Methods. A 3D computational knee model was used to simulate anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using three different grafts with stiffnesses similar to the anterior cruciate ligament (graft 1), a 10mm bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (graft 2), and a 14mm bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (graft 3). The initial graft tension was set to 0 or 40 N with the knee at 30degrees of flexion. A 134 N anterior tibial drawer load and a 400 N quadriceps load were applied to the knee, and kinematics and graft tension were calculated. Results. When fixed with no initial tension, graft I was found to under-constrain the knee, while graft 2 slightly over-constrained the knee, and graft 3 over-constrained the knee when compared to the intact knee. When an initial graft tension of 40 N was used, all of the reconstructed knees were more constrained than when an initial tension of 0 N was used. Conclusions. This study suggests that graft stiffness has a direct impact on knee biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An optimal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can be achieved if the anterior cruciate ligament is replaced by a graft with similar structural stiffness.

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