...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology: official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology >Biomechanical analysis of acromioclavicular joint dislocation repair using coracoclavicular suspension devices in two different configurations
【24h】

Biomechanical analysis of acromioclavicular joint dislocation repair using coracoclavicular suspension devices in two different configurations

机译：使用两种不同配置的锁骨锁骨悬吊装置修复肩锁关节脱位的生物力学

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

class="Heading">Background class="Para">The best treatment option for some acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations is controversial. For this reason, the aim of this study was to evaluate the vertical biomechanical behavior of two techniques for the anatomic repair of coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments after an AC injury. class="Heading">Materials and methods class="Para">Eighteen human cadaveric shoulders in which repair using a coracoclavicular suspension device was initiated after injury to the acromioclavicular joint were included in the study. Three groups were formed; group I (n?=?6): control; group II (n?=?6): repair with a double tunnel in the clavicle and in the coracoid (with two CC suspension devices); group III (n?=?6): repair in a “V” configuration with two tunnels in the clavicle and one in the coracoid (with one CC suspension device). The biomechanical study was performed with a universal testing machine (Electro Puls 3000, Instron, Boulder, MA, USA), with the clamping jaws set in a vertical position. The force required for acromioclavicular reconstruction system failure was analyzed for each cadaveric piece. class="Heading">Results class="Para">Group I reached a maximum force to failure of 635.59?N (mean 444.0?N). The corresponding force was 939.37?N (mean 495.6?N) for group II and 533.11?N (mean 343.9?N) for group III. A comparison of the three groups did not find any significant difference despite the loss of resistance presented by group III. class="Heading">Conclusion class="Para">Anatomic repair of coracoclavicular ligaments with a double system (double tunnel in the clavicle and in the coracoid) permits vertical translation that is more like that of the acromioclavicular joint. Acromioclavicular repair in a “V” configuration does not seem to be biomechanically sufficient.
机译：class =“ Heading”>背景 class =“ Para”>对于某些肩锁关节脱位的最佳治疗方法存在争议。因此，本研究的目的是评估AC损伤后两种锁骨韧带（CC）韧带的解剖修复技术的垂直生物力学行为。 class =“ Heading”>材料和方法< / h3> class =“ Para”>十八个人的尸体肩膀被纳入研究，其中肩锁关节受伤后开始使用肩锁骨悬挂装置进行修复。形成了三个小组。组I（ n ？=？6）：控制;组II（ n ？=？6）：在锁骨和喙骨中使用双通道修复（使用两个CC悬挂装置）;第III组（ n ？=？6）：以“ V”形修复，在锁骨中有两个隧道，在喙骨中有一个隧道（带有一个CC悬挂装置）。用通用试验机（Electro Puls 3000，Instron，博尔德，马萨诸塞州，美国）进行生物力学研究，并将夹爪设置在垂直位置。对于每个尸体，分析了肩锁重建系统失效所需的力。 class =“ Heading”>结果 class =“ Para”>第I组达到的最大失效力为635.59。 N（平均444.0N）。第二组相应的力为939.37？N（平均495.6？N），第三组为533.11？N（平均343.9？N）。尽管第三组抵抗力下降，但对这三组进行比较没有发现任何显着差异。 class =“ Heading”>结论 class =“ Para”>对带有双系统的锁骨韧带（锁骨和喙突中的双通道）允许垂直平移，更像是肩锁关节的平移。 “ V”形的肩锁修复似乎在生物力学上还不够。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号