PDF herunterladen
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32(03): 192-199
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1683398
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Biomechanical Comparison of Three Crural Fascia Repair Techniques for Tibial Tuberosity Advancement Surgery

Jenna E. Giangarra
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
,
Otto I. Lanz
1   Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
,
Joseph C. Glennon
2   Capital Dist Veterinary Surgical Assoc, Pattersonville, New York, United States
,
Takayuki Kobayashi
3   Animal Clinic Kobayashi, Saitama, Japan
,
Michael Tarkanian
4   Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
,
Slobodan Tepic
5   Kyon, Zurich, Switzerland
,
Stephen R. Werre
6   Laboratory for Study Design and Statistical Analysis, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding The authors received no external funding for this project.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

30. November 2017

23. Dezember 2018

Publikationsdatum:
17. Mai 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the strength of three described techniques for repair of the medial crural fascia to the strength of the intact fascia of the paired limbs. We hypothesized that intact controls would have higher peak loads at failure than repair groups and that the modified Mason–Allen suture pattern would have the highest peak load at failure of the repair groups.

Materials and Methods Canine cadavers (n = 22) were randomly assorted into three groups. Group A: a continuous suture pattern. Group B: five equally spaced simple interrupted cruciate sutures over a simple continuous suture pattern. Group C: an interrupted modified Mason–Allen suture pattern. The mid-portion of the crural fascia was incised in Groups A and C, while Group B used a cranial incision. Contralateral limbs were utilized as paired controls. Tibiae were mounted to a biomaterial testing machine and the medial crural fascia loaded at 10 mm/min.

Results Mean peak load to failure for Group A: 201.0N, Group B: 261.0N, Group C: 306.1N and Intact limbs: 799.5N. Between repair groups, there was no significant difference between peak loads to failure identified. Significant differences were identified between all repairs and intact limbs. All repairs approached a mean of 33.5% (267.8N) of intact medial crural fascia strength.

Clinical Significance All repair techniques met no more than 1/3 intact medial crural fascia strength. Further research is required to continue to evaluate the most clinically appropriate technique to repair the medial tibial crural fascia.

Keywords

repair - crural fascia - biomechanical comparison - tibial tuberosity advancement - canine

Author Contribution

Jenna E. Giangarra, Otto I. Lanz, Slobodan Tepic and Stephen R. Werre contributed to data analysis and interpretation. Otto I. Lanz, Joseph C. Glennon, Takayuki Kobayashi, Michael Tarkanian and Slobodan Tepic contributed to conception of study, study design and acquisition of data. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.


 

  • References

  • 1 Kipfer NM, Tepic S, Damur DM, Guerrero T, Hässig M, Montavon PM. Effect of tibial tuberosity advancement on femorotibial shear in cranial cruciate-deficient stifles. An in vitro study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21 (05) 385-390
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lafaver S, Miller NA, Stubbs WP, Taylor RA, Boudrieau RJ. Tibial tuberosity advancement for stabilization of the canine cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle joint: surgical technique, early results, and complications in 101 dogs. Vet Surg 2007; 36 (06) 573-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Montavon PM, Damur DM, Tepic S. Advancement of the tibial tuberosity for the treatment of cranial cruciate deficient canine stifle. Proceedings of the 1st World Orthopaedic Veterinary Congress; Munich, Germany; September 5–8, 2002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tepic S, Damur DM, Montavon PM. Biomechanics of the stifle joint. Proceedings of the 1st World Orthopaedic Veterinary Congress; Munich, Germany; September 5–8, 2002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tepic S, Montavon PM. Is cranial tibial advancement relevant in the cruciate deficient stifle?. Proceedings of the 12th ESVOT Congress; Munich, Germany; September 10–12, 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Miller ME, Evans HE, DeLahunta A. Muscles of the Pelvic Limb. Miller's Anatomy of the Dog. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2013: 850
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Glennon JC. Aponeurotic Sling. Abstract presented at: American College of Veterinary Surgeons Surgery Summit; Nashville, TN; October 22–24, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tamburro R, Pinna S, Tribuiani AM, Panacea A, Carli F, Venturini A. Biceps femoris muscle transposition for treatment of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in small breed dogs. J Vet Sci 2012; 13 (01) 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Miller NA. Pes Anserinus Repair - more important than we thought. Abstract presented at: Kyon Symposium; Boston, MA; April 24–26; 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Scheibel MT, Habermeyer P. A modified Mason-Allen technique for rotator cuff repair using suture anchors. Arthroscopy 2003; 19 (03) 330-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shimizu N, Tarlton J, Friend E, Doran I, Parsons K. Tensile comparison of polydioxanone, polyglyconate, and barbed glycolide-trimethylene carbonate suture in canine cadaveric tensor fascia lata. Vet Surg 2017; 46 (01) 89-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Noyes FR, Sonstegard DA. Biomechanical function of the pes anserinus at the knee and the effect of its transplantation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1973; 55 (06) 1225-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mochizuki T, Akita K, Muneta T, Sato T. Pes anserinus: layered supportive structure on the medial side of the knee. Clin Anat 2004; 17 (01) 50-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gregory JM, Klosterman EL, Thomas JM. , et al. Suture technique influences the biomechanical integrity of pectoralis major repairs. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (09) e746-e752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bowser JE, Elder SH, Rashmir-Raven AM, Swiderski CE. A cryogenic clamping technique that facilitates ultimate tensile strength determinations in tendons and ligaments. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (05) 370-373
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sherman SL, Lin EC, Verma NN. , et al. Biomechanical analysis of the pectoralis major tendon and comparison of techniques for tendo-osseous repair. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (08) 1887-1894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fahie MA. Healing, diagnosis, repair, and rehabilitation of tendon conditions. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005; 35 (05) 1195-1211 , vii vii.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kuwata S, Mori R, Yotsumoto T, Uchio Y. Flexor tendon repair using the two-strand side-locking loop technique to tolerate aggressive active mobilization immediately after surgery. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2007; 22 (10) 1083-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moores AP, Comerford EJ, Tarlton JF, Owen MR. Biomechanical and clinical evaluation of a modified 3-loop pulley suture pattern for reattachment of canine tendons to bone. Vet Surg 2004; 33 (04) 391-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Montgomery R, Barnes S, Wenzel G, Milton J, Terry G. In vitro comparison of the Krackow and locking loop suture patterns for tenorrhaphy of flat tendons. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1994; (01) 36-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McLarney E, Hoffman H, Wolfe SW. Biomechanical analysis of the cruciate four-strand flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am 1999; 24 (02) 295-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wilson L, Banks T, Luckman P, Smith B. Biomechanical evaluation of double Krackow sutures versus the three-loop pulley suture in a canine gastrocnemius tendon avulsion model. Aust Vet J 2014; 92 (11) 427-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dunlap AE, Kim SE, McNicholas Jr WT. Biomechanical evaluation of a non-locking pre-manufactured loop suture technique compared to a three-loop pulley suture in a canine calcaneus tendon avulsion model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (02) 131-135
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Easley KJ, Stashak TS, Smith FW, Van Slyke G. Mechanical properties of four suture patterns for transected equine tendon repair. Vet Surg 1990; 19 (02) 102-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Guzzini M, Lanzetti RM, Proietti L. , et al. Interlocking horizontal mattress suture versus Kakiuchi technique in repair of Achilles tendon rupture: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Traumatol 2017; 18 (03) 251-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Abiri A, Paydar O, Tao A. , et al. Tensile strength and failure load of sutures for robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 2017; 31 (08) 3258-3270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 von Fraunhofer JA, Storey RS, Stone IK, Masterson BJ. Tensile strength of suture materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1985; 19 (05) 595-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schleip R, Klingler W, Lehmann-Horn F. Active fascial contractility: fascia may be able to contract in a smooth muscle-like manner and thereby influence musculoskeletal dynamics. Med Hypotheses 2005; 65 (02) 273-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Yahia L, Rhalmi S, Newman N, Isler M. Sensory innervation of human thoracolumbar fascia. An immunohistochemical study. Acta Orthop Scand 1992; 63 (02) 195-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stilwell Jr DL. Regional variations in the innervation of deep fasciae and aponeuroses. Anat Rec 1957; 127 (04) 635-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sakada S. Mechanoreceptors in fascia, periosteum and periodontal ligament. Bull Tokyo Med Dent Univ 1974; 21 (0, Suppl): 11-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lephart SM, Pincivero DM, Giraldo JL, Fu FH. The role of proprioception in the management and rehabilitation of athletic injuries. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25 (01) 130-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zaffagnini S, Golanò P, Farinas O. , et al. Vascularity and neuroreceptors of the pes anserinus: anatomic study. Clin Anat 2003; 16 (01) 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gächter A. Autologous or Allogeneic Reconstruction?. In: Jakob RP, Stäubli HU. , eds. The Knee and the Cruciate Ligaments: Anatomy Biomechanics Clinical Aspects Reconstruction Complications Rehabilitation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1990: 357-362
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Sharma P, Maffulli N. Biology of tendon injury: healing, modeling and remodeling. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2006; 6 (02) 181-190
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Corr SA, Draffan D, Kulendra E, Carmichael S, Brodbelt D. Retrospective study of Achilles mechanism disruption in 45 dogs. Vet Rec 2010; 167 (11) 407-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Morton MA, Whitelock RG, Innes JF. Mechanical testing of a synthetic canine gastrocnemius tendon implant. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (05) 596-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar