ObjectiveTo compare the strength difference between the interfacial screw and the interfacial screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology to fix the tibial end of ligament during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction through the biomechanical test.MethodsTwenty fresh frozen pig tibia were randomly divided into two groups (n=10) to prepare ACL reconstruction models. The graft tendons in the experimental group were fixed with interfacial screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology, and the graft tendons in the control group were fixed with interfacial screw. The two groups of specimens were fixed in the high-frequency dynamic mechanics test system M-3000, and the length change (displacement), ultimate load, and stiffness of graft tendons were measured through the reciprocating test and load-failure test.ResultsThe results of reciprocating test showed that the displacement of the experimental group was (3.06±0.58) mm, and that of the control group was (2.82±0.46) mm, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (t=0.641, P=0.529). The load-failure test results showed that the stiffness of the experimental group and the control group were (95.39±13.63) and (91.38±14.28) N/mm, respectively, with no significant difference (t=1.021, P=0.321). The ultimate load of the experimental group was (743.15±173.96) N, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (574.70±74.43) N (t=2.648, P=0.016).ConclusionIn ACL reconstruction, the fixation strength of tibial end with interface screw combined with bone tunnel crossing technology is obviously better than that of interface screw alone.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of transosseous suture in medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) double bundle reconstruction. Methods The clinical data of 75 patients with recurrent patella dislocation who met the selection criteria between January 2014 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. All of them were treated with MPFL double bundle reconstruction, and divided into study group (39 cases, using new transosseous suture technique) and control group (36 cases, using traditional suture anchor fixation) depending on the intraoperative fixation technique. There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, affected knee side, preoperative tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance, Insall-Salvati ratio, knee range of motion, Kujala score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, congruence angle, and tilt angle between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Kujala score, IKDC score, and knee range of motion were used to evaluate the functional improvement of patients before and after operation. The congruence angle and tilt angle were measured on X-ray films. Results There was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 24-36 months, with an average of 29.4 months. There was no complication such as incision infection, fat liquefaction, patellar redislocation, and prepatellar pain during follow-up. At last follow-up, the Kujala score, IKDC score, knee range of motion, congruence angle, and tilt angle of two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThe application of suture anchor or transosseous suture to complete MPFL double bundle reconstruction can restore patellar stability, and there is no significant difference in the short-term effectiveness between them.