1.Biomechanical Comparison of the Latarjet Procedure with and without Capsular Repair.
Matthew T KLEINER ; William B PAYNE ; Michelle H MCGARRY ; James E TIBONE ; Thay Q LEE
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2016;8(1):84-91
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if capsular repair used in conjunction with the Latarjet procedure results in significant alterations in glenohumeral rotational range of motion and translation. METHODS: Glenohumeral rotational range of motion and translation were measured in eight cadaveric shoulders in 90degrees of abduction in both the scapular and coronal planes under the following four conditions: intact glenoid, 20% bony Bankart lesion, modified Latarjet without capsular repair, and modified Latarjet with capsular repair. RESULTS: Creation of a 20% bony Bankart lesion led to significant increases in anterior and inferior glenohumeral translation and rotational range of motion (p < 0.005). The Latarjet procedure restored anterior and inferior stability compared to the bony Bankart condition. It also led to significant increases in glenohumeral internal and external rotational range of motion relative to both the intact and bony Bankart conditions (p < 0.05). The capsular repair from the coracoacromial ligament stump to the native capsule did not significantly affect translations relative to the Latarjet condition; however it did cause a significant decrease in external rotation in both the scapular and coronal planes (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The Latarjet procedure is effective in restoring anteroinferior glenohumeral stability. The addition of a capsular repair does not result in significant added stability; however, it does appear to have the effect of restricting glenohumeral external rotational range of motion relative to the Latarjet procedure performed without capsular repair.
Biomechanical Phenomena/*physiology
;
Female
;
Humans
;
Humerus/physiology/surgery
;
Male
;
Middle Aged
;
Range of Motion, Articular/*physiology
;
Scapula/physiology/surgery
;
Shoulder Joint/*physiology/*surgery
2.Load-Dependent Characteristics of Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Study
Jason H. LEE ; Ran SCHWARZKOPF ; Genevieve FRAIPONT ; Ghita BOUZARIF ; Michelle H MCGARRY ; Thay Q LEE
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2024;16(4):570-577
Background:
Increased load bearing across the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral articulations has been associated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) complications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the biomechanical characteristics of the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints and simulate varying weight-bearing demands after posterior cruciate ligament-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs.
Methods:
Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees (average age, 68.4 years; range, 40–86 years) were tested using a custom knee system with muscle-loading capabilities. The TKA knees were tested with a CR and then a PS TKA implant and were loaded at 6 different flexion angles from 15° to 90° with progressively increasing loads. The independent variables were the implant types (CR and PS TKA), progressively increased loading, and knee flexion angle (KFA). The dependent variables were the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral kinematics and contact characteristics.
Results:
The results showed that at higher KFAs, the position of the femur translated significantly more posterior in CR implants than in PS implants (36.6 ± 5.2 mm and 32.5 ± 5.7 mm, respectively). The patellofemoral contact force and contact area were significantly greater in PS than in CR implants at higher KFAs and loads (102.4 ± 12.5 N and 88.1 ± 10.9 N, respectively). Lastly, the tibiofemoral contact force was significantly greater in the CR than the PS implant at flexion angles of 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90° KFA, the average at these flexion angles for all loads tested being 246.1 ± 42.1 N and 192.8 ± 54.8 N for CR and PS implants, respectively.
Conclusions
In this biomechanical study, CR TKAs showed less patellofemoral contact force, but more tibiofemoral contact force than PS TKAs. For higher loads across the joint and at increased flexion angles, there was significantly more posterior femur translation in the CR design with a preserved posterior cruciate ligament and therefore significantly less patellofemoral contact area and force than in the PS design. The different effects of loading on implants are an important consideration for physicians as patients with higher load demands should consider the significantly greater patellofemoral contact force and area of the PS over the CR design.
3.Biomechanical Characterization of a New Locking Loop Stitch for Graft Fixation versus Krackow Stitch
Yasuo ITAMI ; Orr LIMPISVASTI ; Michelle H. MCGARRY ; Nilay A. PATEL ; Charles C. LIN ; Thomas DOONEY ; Teruhisa MIHATA ; Masashi NEO ; Thay Q. LEE
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2023;15(3):508-515
Background:
The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the biomechanical characteristics of a new locking loop stitch (LLS), developed utilizing the concepts of both running locking stitch and needleless stitch, to the traditional Krackow stitch.
Methods:
The Krackow stitch with No.2 braided suture and the LLS with 1.3-mm augmented polyblend suture tape were compared biomechanically. The LLS was performed with single strand locking loops and wrapping suture around the tendon, resulting in half the needle penetrations through the graft compared to the Krackow stitch. Twenty bovine extensor tendons were divided randomly into two groups. The tendons were prepared to match equal thickness and cross-sectional area. Each suture-tendon was stitched and preloaded to 5 N for 60 seconds, cyclically loaded to 20 N, 40 N, and 60 N for 10 cycles each, and then loaded to failure. The deformation of the suture-tendon construct, stiffness, yield load, and ultimate load were measured.
Results:
The LLS had significantly less deformation of the suture-tendon construct at 100 N, 200 N, 300 N, and at ultimate load compared to the Krackow stitch (Krackow stitch and LLS at 100 N: 1.3 ± 0.1 mm and 1.0 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.001; 200 N: 3.0 ± 0.3 mm and 1.9 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.001; 300 N: 5.1 ± 0.6 mm and 2.9 ± 0.4 mm, p < 0.001; ultimate load: 12.8 ± 2.8 mm and 5.0 ± 1.2 mm, p < 0.001).The LLS had significantly greater stiffness (Krackow stitch and LLS: 97.5 ± 6.9 N/mm and 117.2 ± 13.9 N/mm, p < 0.001) and yield load (Krackow stitch and LLS: 66.2 ± 15.9 N and 237.9 ± 93.6 N, p < 0.001) compared to the Krackow stitch. There was no significant difference in ultimate load (Krackow stitch: 450.2 ± 49.4 N; LLS: 472.6 ± 59.8 N; p = 0.290).
Conclusions
The LLS had significantly smaller deformation of the suture-tendon construct compared to the Krackow stitch. The LLS may be a viable surgical alternative to the Krackow stitch for graft fixation when secure fixation is necessary.
4.Biomechanical Analysis of Three Different Reconstruction Techniques for Scapholunate Instability: A Cadaveric Study
Seungbum CHAE ; Junho NAM ; Il-Jung PARK ; Steve S. SHIN ; Michelle H. MCGARRY ; Thay Q LEE
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2022;14(4):613-621
Background:
This study aimed to compare the biomechanical strength of 360° scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) reconstruction only using an artificial material (AM), double dorsal limb (DDL) SLIL reconstruction only using AM, and the modified Brunelli technique (MBT) with ligament.
Methods:
Eight cadaver wrists were used for this study. The SL interval, SL angle, and radiolunate (RL) angle were recorded with MicroScribe. The SL distance was measured after dividing the volar and dorsal aspects. We utilized four different wrist postures (neutral, flexion, extension, and clenched fist) to compare five conditions: intact wrist, SLIL resection, 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM, DDL SLIL reconstruction using AM, and MBT SLIL reconstruction with ligament.
Results:
The dorsal SL distance in the SLIL resection was widened in all wrist positions. The dorsal SL distance was restored with all three techniques and in all wrist positions. The volar SL distance in the wrist extension position was widened in the SLIL resection condition. The volar SL distance was restored in the extension position after 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM condition. There were no statistically significant differences in SL and RL angles among the conditions.
Conclusions
All three reconstruction techniques could restore the dorsal SL distance. However, only the 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM restored the volar SL distance in the wrist extension position. DDL SLIL reconstruction using AM tended to overcorrect, whereas 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM effectively stopped volar SL interval widening.
5.Do Magnets Have the Potential to Serve as a Stabilizer for the Shoulder Joint in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears?: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study
Yoon Sang JEON ; Sang Hyun KO ; Yun Moon JEON ; Dong Jin RYU ; Jeong Seok KIM ; Hyun Soon PARK ; Min-Shik CHUNG ; Daniel KWAK ; Michelle H. MCGARRY ; Thay Q. LEE
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2023;15(4):616-626
Background:
Disruption of the rotator cuff muscles compromises concavity compression force, which leads to superior migration of the humeral head and loss of stability. A novel idea of using the magnetic force to achieve shoulder stabilization in massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs) was considered because the magnets can stabilize two separate entities with an attraction force. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of the magnetic force on shoulder stabilization in MRCTs.
Methods:
Seven fresh frozen cadaveric specimens were used with a customized shoulder testing system. Three testing conditions were set up: condition 1, intact rotator cuff without magnets; condition 2, an MRCT without magnets; condition 3, an MRCT with magnets. For each condition, anterior-posterior translation, superior translation, superior migration, and subacromial contact pressure were measured at 0°, 30°, and 60° of abduction. The abduction capability of condition 2 was compared with that of condition 3.
Results:
The anterior-posterior and superior translations increased in condition 2; however, they decreased compared to condition 2 when the magnets were applied (condition 3) in multiple test positions and loadings (p <0.05). Abduction capability improved significantly in condition 3 compared with that in condition 2, even for less deltoid loading (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
The magnet biomechanically played a positive role in stabilizing the shoulder joint and enabled abduction with less deltoid force in MRCTs. However, to ensure that the magnet is clinically applicable as a stabilizer for the shoulder joint, it is necessary to thoroughly verify its safety in the human body and to conduct further research on technical challenges.