...
首页> 外文期刊>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy: official journal of the ESSKA >Pull-out and shear failure strengths of arthroscopic meniscal repair systems.
【24h】

Pull-out and shear failure strengths of arthroscopic meniscal repair systems.

机译:关节镜半月板修复系统的抗拉强度和剪切破坏强度。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Meniscal repair is common and recommended in young patients. Suture techniques and fixation devices were developed for stronger, more facile repairs. Three devices (T-Fix, Meniscal Staple, Meniscus Arrow) were biomechanically compared to horizontal PDS suture. Peripheral tears were created in porcine menisci and repaired using the manufacturer's technique. An Instron was used to distract the menisci at 50 mm/min in axial-pullout and longitudinal shear loads. Load to failure curves and peak failure loads were noted. Load to failure in axially loaded pull-out mode was: Staple, 4.195+/-3.70 N; Arrow, 39.755+/-11.37 N; T-Fix, 45.892+/-13.99 N; Suture, 107.65+/-22.37 N. Analysis of variance with post hoc testing revealed Staple failure at lower load than all devices and Suture failure at higher loads than all devices; Arrow and T-Fix were similar. The data varied significantly from that obtained in shear. Shear loads to failure were: Staple, 8.39+/-8.62 N; Arrow, 27.67+/-14.33 N; T-Fix, 57.47+/-17.05 N; Suture, 64.15+/-17.05 N. Analysis of variance, power analysis, and pair-wise multiple comparisons revealed significant differences between: Suture and Staple, Suture and Arrow, and T-Fix and Staple. No differences were noted between Suture and T-Fix, T-Fix and Arrow, or Arrow and Staple. In pullout, Suture and T-Fix maintained better apposition at low loads. As load increased, the menisci separated until device failure. Arrows allowed low load separation but held tissue until failure. Staples failed at low load. For shear, the menisci attempted to reorient parallel to the force. The devices failed in a pull-slide pattern. Suture failed by pull-through. Meniscal repair devices are easy to use and may provide resistance to shear and pull out. The resistance to pullout loads was very different than the resistance to longitudinal shear loads.
机译:半月板修复很常见,建议年轻患者使用。缝线技术和固定装置的开发旨在实现更强大,更轻松的修复。将三种设备(T型固定,半月板钉书钉,半月板箭头)与水平PDS缝合线进行了生物力学比较。在猪半月板中产生了周围的眼泪,并使用制造商的技术对其进行了修复。使用Instron在轴向拉力和纵向剪切载荷下以50 mm / min的速度分散弯液面。记录了破坏荷载曲线和峰值破坏荷载。轴向加载拔出模式下的失效负载为:钉书针,4.195 +/- 3.70 N;箭,39.755 +/- 11.37 N; T-Fix,45.892 +/- 13.99 N; Suture,107.65 +/- 22.37N。事后测试的方差分析表明,在比所有设备低的负载下装订失败,在比所有设备高的负载下缝合失败; Arrow和T-Fix相似。数据与剪切获得的数据明显不同。破坏的剪切载荷为:钉书钉,8.39 +/- 8.62 N;箭头,27.67 +/- 14.33 N; T-Fix,57.47 +/- 17.05 N;缝合线,64.15 +/- 17.05N。方差分析,功效分析和成对的多重比较显示:缝合线和钉书钉,缝合线和箭头以及T-Fix和钉书钉之间存在显着差异。缝合线与T-Fix,T-Fix与Arrow或Arrow与Staple之间没有发现差异。在拉出中,缝合线和T-Fix在低负载下保持更好的并置。随着负载的增加,弯液面分离,直到设备发生故障。箭头允许低负荷分离,但保持组织直至失败。订书钉在低负载下失败。对于剪切,弯液面试图平行于力重新定向。设备以拉滑模式发生故障。缝合因穿通失败。半月板修复装置易于使用,可以抵抗剪切和拉出。抵抗拔出载荷的能力与抵抗纵向剪切载荷的能力非常不同。

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