Comparison of Broström technique, suture anchor repair, and tape augmentation for reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament
Purpose Recently, tape augmentation for Broström repair has been introduced in order to improve the primary stability of the reconstructed anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL). The biomechanical effect of tape augmentation suture anchor (SA) repair is not known yet. The aim of the present study was...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016-04, Vol.24 (4), p.1101-1107 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1107 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1101 |
container_title | Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Schuh, R. Benca, E. Willegger, M. Hirtler, L. Zandieh, S. Holinka, J. Windhager, R. |
description | Purpose
Recently, tape augmentation for Broström repair has been introduced in order to improve the primary stability of the reconstructed anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL). The biomechanical effect of tape augmentation suture anchor (SA) repair is not known yet. The aim of the present study was to compare construct stability of the traditional Broström (TB) repair compared with a stand alone SA repair (SutureTak
®
, Arthrex) and SA repair combined with tape augmentation (InternalBrace
®
, Arthrex) internal brace (IB) of the ATFL.
Methods
Eighteen fresh-frozen human anatomic lower leg specimens were randomly assigned to three different groups: TB group, SA group, and IB augmentation group. In vivo torsion conditions in ankle sprain were carried out quasi-statically (0.5°/s). Torque (Nm) required to resist as well as the rotary displacement (°) of the load frame was recorded. Intergroup differences for age, bone mineral density (BMD), angle at failure, and torque at failure were analysed using ANOVA.
Results
In the TB group, ATFL reconstruction failed at an angle of 24.1°, in the SA group failure occurred at 35.5°, and in the IB group it failed at 46.9° (
p
= 0.02). Torque at failure reached 5.7 Nm for the TB repair, 8.0 Nm for the SA repair, and 11.2 Nm for the IB group (
p
= 0.04). There was no correlation between angle at ATFL failure, torque at failure, and BMD for the SA or IB groups.
Conclusion
The present biomechanical study reveals statistically superior performance in terms of angle at failure as well as failure torque for the IB group compared to the other reconstruction methods. BMD did not influence the construct stability in the SA repair groups. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00167-015-3631-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785241885</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4012516751</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-31db09953df88d78700cfaa5d4e2cb6e529b0745b73de60597f3fde093581423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1u1TAQhS0EopfCA7BBkdh00cA4tmN7CVflR6rEpnvLcex7XSVx8M-CF-gj8QK8GE5vQQgJiZXtme-c0fgg9BLDGwzA3yYA3PMWMGtJT3DLH6EdpoS0nFD-GO1A0q7tgPVn6FlKtwD1SuVTdNYxyXiPyQ7d7cO86uhTWJrgmvcxpBx_fJ-bbM1x8V-LvWxSySXaRi_mGGIT7ap9vKzPscl6rfVymO2SdfbVw90TJizVppj7UrXNx02ebfS1nfUUnB_KpGMz-YPexM_RE6enZF88nOfo5sPVzf5Te_3l4-f9u-vWUI5zS_A4gJSMjE6IkQsOYJzWbKS2M0NvWScH4JQNnIy2Bya5I260IAkTmHbkHF2cbNcY6mopq9knY6dJLzaUpDAXrKNYCPYfKJdC4p7Rir7-C70NJS51j40SklJMSKXwiTL1j1O0Tq3Rzzp-UxjUFqc6xalqnGqLU_GqefXgXIbZjr8Vv_KrQHcCUm0tBxv_GP1P15_wjKzH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1778944133</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Broström technique, suture anchor repair, and tape augmentation for reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Schuh, R. ; Benca, E. ; Willegger, M. ; Hirtler, L. ; Zandieh, S. ; Holinka, J. ; Windhager, R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schuh, R. ; Benca, E. ; Willegger, M. ; Hirtler, L. ; Zandieh, S. ; Holinka, J. ; Windhager, R.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Recently, tape augmentation for Broström repair has been introduced in order to improve the primary stability of the reconstructed anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL). The biomechanical effect of tape augmentation suture anchor (SA) repair is not known yet. The aim of the present study was to compare construct stability of the traditional Broström (TB) repair compared with a stand alone SA repair (SutureTak
®
, Arthrex) and SA repair combined with tape augmentation (InternalBrace
®
, Arthrex) internal brace (IB) of the ATFL.
Methods
Eighteen fresh-frozen human anatomic lower leg specimens were randomly assigned to three different groups: TB group, SA group, and IB augmentation group. In vivo torsion conditions in ankle sprain were carried out quasi-statically (0.5°/s). Torque (Nm) required to resist as well as the rotary displacement (°) of the load frame was recorded. Intergroup differences for age, bone mineral density (BMD), angle at failure, and torque at failure were analysed using ANOVA.
Results
In the TB group, ATFL reconstruction failed at an angle of 24.1°, in the SA group failure occurred at 35.5°, and in the IB group it failed at 46.9° (
p
= 0.02). Torque at failure reached 5.7 Nm for the TB repair, 8.0 Nm for the SA repair, and 11.2 Nm for the IB group (
p
= 0.04). There was no correlation between angle at ATFL failure, torque at failure, and BMD for the SA or IB groups.
Conclusion
The present biomechanical study reveals statistically superior performance in terms of angle at failure as well as failure torque for the IB group compared to the other reconstruction methods. BMD did not influence the construct stability in the SA repair groups.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0942-2056</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-7347</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3631-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25957613</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Ankle ; Ankle Joint - surgery ; Biomechanics ; Bone density ; Cadaver ; Female ; Humans ; Joint Instability - surgery ; Knee ; Ligaments ; Ligaments, Articular - surgery ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedic Procedures - methods ; Orthopedics ; Random Allocation ; Surgical Tape ; Suture Anchors</subject><ispartof>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016-04, Vol.24 (4), p.1101-1107</ispartof><rights>European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015</rights><rights>European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-31db09953df88d78700cfaa5d4e2cb6e529b0745b73de60597f3fde093581423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-31db09953df88d78700cfaa5d4e2cb6e529b0745b73de60597f3fde093581423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00167-015-3631-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00167-015-3631-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25957613$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schuh, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benca, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willegger, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirtler, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zandieh, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holinka, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Windhager, R.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Broström technique, suture anchor repair, and tape augmentation for reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament</title><title>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA</title><addtitle>Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc</addtitle><addtitle>Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc</addtitle><description>Purpose
Recently, tape augmentation for Broström repair has been introduced in order to improve the primary stability of the reconstructed anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL). The biomechanical effect of tape augmentation suture anchor (SA) repair is not known yet. The aim of the present study was to compare construct stability of the traditional Broström (TB) repair compared with a stand alone SA repair (SutureTak
®
, Arthrex) and SA repair combined with tape augmentation (InternalBrace
®
, Arthrex) internal brace (IB) of the ATFL.
Methods
Eighteen fresh-frozen human anatomic lower leg specimens were randomly assigned to three different groups: TB group, SA group, and IB augmentation group. In vivo torsion conditions in ankle sprain were carried out quasi-statically (0.5°/s). Torque (Nm) required to resist as well as the rotary displacement (°) of the load frame was recorded. Intergroup differences for age, bone mineral density (BMD), angle at failure, and torque at failure were analysed using ANOVA.
Results
In the TB group, ATFL reconstruction failed at an angle of 24.1°, in the SA group failure occurred at 35.5°, and in the IB group it failed at 46.9° (
p
= 0.02). Torque at failure reached 5.7 Nm for the TB repair, 8.0 Nm for the SA repair, and 11.2 Nm for the IB group (
p
= 0.04). There was no correlation between angle at ATFL failure, torque at failure, and BMD for the SA or IB groups.
Conclusion
The present biomechanical study reveals statistically superior performance in terms of angle at failure as well as failure torque for the IB group compared to the other reconstruction methods. BMD did not influence the construct stability in the SA repair groups.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Ankle</subject><subject>Ankle Joint - surgery</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Bone density</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Joint Instability - surgery</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Ligaments</subject><subject>Ligaments, Articular - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedic Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Surgical Tape</subject><subject>Suture Anchors</subject><issn>0942-2056</issn><issn>1433-7347</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1u1TAQhS0EopfCA7BBkdh00cA4tmN7CVflR6rEpnvLcex7XSVx8M-CF-gj8QK8GE5vQQgJiZXtme-c0fgg9BLDGwzA3yYA3PMWMGtJT3DLH6EdpoS0nFD-GO1A0q7tgPVn6FlKtwD1SuVTdNYxyXiPyQ7d7cO86uhTWJrgmvcxpBx_fJ-bbM1x8V-LvWxSySXaRi_mGGIT7ap9vKzPscl6rfVymO2SdfbVw90TJizVppj7UrXNx02ebfS1nfUUnB_KpGMz-YPexM_RE6enZF88nOfo5sPVzf5Te_3l4-f9u-vWUI5zS_A4gJSMjE6IkQsOYJzWbKS2M0NvWScH4JQNnIy2Bya5I260IAkTmHbkHF2cbNcY6mopq9knY6dJLzaUpDAXrKNYCPYfKJdC4p7Rir7-C70NJS51j40SklJMSKXwiTL1j1O0Tq3Rzzp-UxjUFqc6xalqnGqLU_GqefXgXIbZjr8Vv_KrQHcCUm0tBxv_GP1P15_wjKzH</recordid><startdate>20160401</startdate><enddate>20160401</enddate><creator>Schuh, R.</creator><creator>Benca, E.</creator><creator>Willegger, M.</creator><creator>Hirtler, L.</creator><creator>Zandieh, S.</creator><creator>Holinka, J.</creator><creator>Windhager, R.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160401</creationdate><title>Comparison of Broström technique, suture anchor repair, and tape augmentation for reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament</title><author>Schuh, R. ; Benca, E. ; Willegger, M. ; Hirtler, L. ; Zandieh, S. ; Holinka, J. ; Windhager, R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-31db09953df88d78700cfaa5d4e2cb6e529b0745b73de60597f3fde093581423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Ankle</topic><topic>Ankle Joint - surgery</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Bone density</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Joint Instability - surgery</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Ligaments</topic><topic>Ligaments, Articular - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedic Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Surgical Tape</topic><topic>Suture Anchors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schuh, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benca, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willegger, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirtler, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zandieh, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holinka, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Windhager, R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schuh, R.</au><au>Benca, E.</au><au>Willegger, M.</au><au>Hirtler, L.</au><au>Zandieh, S.</au><au>Holinka, J.</au><au>Windhager, R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Broström technique, suture anchor repair, and tape augmentation for reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament</atitle><jtitle>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA</jtitle><stitle>Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc</stitle><addtitle>Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc</addtitle><date>2016-04-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1101</spage><epage>1107</epage><pages>1101-1107</pages><issn>0942-2056</issn><eissn>1433-7347</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Recently, tape augmentation for Broström repair has been introduced in order to improve the primary stability of the reconstructed anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL). The biomechanical effect of tape augmentation suture anchor (SA) repair is not known yet. The aim of the present study was to compare construct stability of the traditional Broström (TB) repair compared with a stand alone SA repair (SutureTak
®
, Arthrex) and SA repair combined with tape augmentation (InternalBrace
®
, Arthrex) internal brace (IB) of the ATFL.
Methods
Eighteen fresh-frozen human anatomic lower leg specimens were randomly assigned to three different groups: TB group, SA group, and IB augmentation group. In vivo torsion conditions in ankle sprain were carried out quasi-statically (0.5°/s). Torque (Nm) required to resist as well as the rotary displacement (°) of the load frame was recorded. Intergroup differences for age, bone mineral density (BMD), angle at failure, and torque at failure were analysed using ANOVA.
Results
In the TB group, ATFL reconstruction failed at an angle of 24.1°, in the SA group failure occurred at 35.5°, and in the IB group it failed at 46.9° (
p
= 0.02). Torque at failure reached 5.7 Nm for the TB repair, 8.0 Nm for the SA repair, and 11.2 Nm for the IB group (
p
= 0.04). There was no correlation between angle at ATFL failure, torque at failure, and BMD for the SA or IB groups.
Conclusion
The present biomechanical study reveals statistically superior performance in terms of angle at failure as well as failure torque for the IB group compared to the other reconstruction methods. BMD did not influence the construct stability in the SA repair groups.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>25957613</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00167-015-3631-7</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0942-2056 |
ispartof | Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016-04, Vol.24 (4), p.1101-1107 |
issn | 0942-2056 1433-7347 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1785241885 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Aged Aged, 80 and over Ankle Ankle Joint - surgery Biomechanics Bone density Cadaver Female Humans Joint Instability - surgery Knee Ligaments Ligaments, Articular - surgery Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Orthopedic Procedures - methods Orthopedics Random Allocation Surgical Tape Suture Anchors |
title | Comparison of Broström technique, suture anchor repair, and tape augmentation for reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T11%3A10%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Brostr%C3%B6m%20technique,%20suture%20anchor%20repair,%20and%20tape%20augmentation%20for%20reconstruction%20of%20the%20anterior%20talofibular%20ligament&rft.jtitle=Knee%20surgery,%20sports%20traumatology,%20arthroscopy%20:%20official%20journal%20of%20the%20ESSKA&rft.au=Schuh,%20R.&rft.date=2016-04-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1101&rft.epage=1107&rft.pages=1101-1107&rft.issn=0942-2056&rft.eissn=1433-7347&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00167-015-3631-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4012516751%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1778944133&rft_id=info:pmid/25957613&rfr_iscdi=true |