Internal Bracing Augmentation for Scapholunate Interosseous Ligament Repair: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

Park, Il-Jung; Maniglio, Mauro; Shin, Steven S; Lim, Dohyung; McGarry, Michelle H; Lee, Thay Q (2020). Internal Bracing Augmentation for Scapholunate Interosseous Ligament Repair: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study. The journal of hand surgery. Asian-Pacific volume, 45(10), 985.e1-985.e9. World Scientific 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.03.017

[img] Text
1-s2.0-S0363502320301544-main.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

PURPOSE

Internal bracing (IB) is an augmentation method using high-strength nonabsorbable tape. This study compared scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) repair alone, SLIL repair with IB augmentation (RIBA), and native intact SLIL (NIS) in a biomechanical cadaveric model.

METHODS

We used 21 specimens of fresh-frozen wrists in this study (7 matched pairs, SLIL repair-only and SLIL RIBA groups; and 7 independent fresh-frozen wrists, NIS group). In the SLIL RIBA group, augmentation using IB was performed after the repair. The specimens were preloaded and cyclically loaded in tension. Maximum extension and hysteresis were measured in all specimens. The specimens were subsequently tested for load to failure. Failure load (yield point load, mean ultimate load, and load at clinical failure) and linear stiffness were calculated.

RESULTS

In cyclic tensile testing, RIBA showed lower maximum extension and lower hysteresis than repair alone. In load to failure testing, the yield point load was statistically higher in the RIBA (59.3 N) group than in the repair-only (30.4 N) group but showed no significant difference compared with the NIS (90.7 N) groups. Moreover, the RIBA (98.5 N) group showed higher and lower mean ultimate loads than the repair-only (37.7 N) and NIS (211.8 N) groups, respectively. Load at clinical failure was higher with RIBA than with repair alone (3-mm extension: 70.0 vs 26.4 N; 4-mm extension: 84.1 vs 33.4 N). Repair alone and RIBA had comparable linear stiffness (38.2 vs 44.1 N/mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Although SLIL RIBA did not recreate biomechanical properties equivalent to those of NIS, it demonstrated a significantly higher strength than repair alone.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Repair with IB augmentation could serve as a novel surgical technique that enhances SLIL direct repair through biomechanical support.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Orthopaedic, Plastic and Hand Surgery (DOPH) > Clinic of Orthopaedic Surgery

UniBE Contributor:

Maniglio, Mauro

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

2424-8363

Publisher:

World Scientific

Language:

English

Submitter:

Kathrin Aeschlimann

Date Deposited:

30 Dec 2020 08:48

Last Modified:

05 Dec 2022 15:42

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.03.017

PubMed ID:

32434732

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Augmentation internal bracing scapholunate interosseous ligament

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/149032

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/149032

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback