English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: There are numerous techniques for MPFL reconstruction, however, one single technique has not been proven to be superior to another. Suture anchor reconstruction has been shown to provide stable fixation while decreasing the risk of patellar fracture. The aim of the study was to compare the stiffness and clinical load to failure of two common MPFL reconstruction techniques. Our hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in the stiffness and the clinical load to failure between the suture anchor and interference screw reconstructions. Methods: Eight pairs of fresh frozen cadaveric knees were randomized into two groups undergoing MPFL reconstruction using either a suture anchor technique (n=8) or an interference screw technique (n=8). Testing was performed at 0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees of flexion for the native knee, transected medial structures, and reconstructed MPFL. Next, the reconstructed MPFL specimens were tested until failure in 0 degrees of flexion. T test, One-Way ANOVA, and repeated measures of ANOVA were used for statistical analysis, P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Results: The average stiffness for the suture anchor and interference screw reconstructions was 12.02 ± 3.96 N/mm and 14.21 ± 4.20 N/mm, respectively (t test, p = 0.27), while average clinical load to failure was 256.57 ± 54.1 N and 237.81 ± 23.82 N, respectively (t test, p = 0.38). There was no significant difference in stiffness between the suture anchor and interference screw techniques at 0, 30, and 60 degrees of flexion. Conclusions: The suture anchor and interference screw reconstruction techniques produce comparable stiffness for sub-failure testing at 0 and 30 degrees of flexion. For testing to failure, the initial stiffness for both reconstruction techniques have been shown to be concordant with previously published values for the native MPFL. Both reconstruction techniques provide greater ultimate failure loads than those reported for the native MPFL in previous studies. Clinical Relevance: Suture anchor reconstruction described in our study provides another reliable option for the reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament. Figure 4: Shows the stiffness of MPFL under four different testing conditions (Mean ± SEM). Suture anchor technique provided results more closely related to the native MPFL in terms of stiffness than interference screw technique.

A BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF SUTURE ANCHOR VS. INTERFERENCE SCREW TECHNIQUE FOR PATELLAR FIXATION FOR MEDIAL PATELLOFEMORAL LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION