Nonanatomic versus anatomic techniques in spring ligament reconstruction: biomechanical assessment via a finite element model

被引:14
|
作者
Xu, Can [1 ]
Li, Ming Qing [1 ]
Wang, Chenggong [1 ]
Liu, Hua [1 ]
机构
[1] Cent S Univ, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Xiangya Hosp, 87,Xiangya St, Changsha 401008, Hunan, Peoples R China
关键词
Finite element; Flatfoot; Spring ligament reconstruction; Nonanatomic; Contact characteristics; ACQUIRED FLATFOOT DEFORMITY; PERONEUS LONGUS AUTOGRAFT; DELTOID LIGAMENT; TALONAVICULAR JOINT; ANKLE; VALIDATION; TENODESIS; FOOT; ARCH;
D O I
10.1186/s13018-019-1154-5
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundSeveral approaches to spring ligament reconstruction have been reported. However, a comparative study of nonanatomic and anatomic techniques with respect to biomechanical responses, such as kinematics and contact characteristics, has not been previously performed via a finite element analysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical results of such spring ligament reconstructions via a finite element analysis.MethodsA three-dimensional finite element model of the foot was developed and validated, and four reconstruction methods were simulated. The talonavicular dorsiflexion and abduction, hindfoot valgus, and contact characteristics in the Chopart joints were quantified in each model.ResultsNonanatomic reconstructions corrected the talonavicular and hindfoot deformities to a greater extent than the anatomic reconstructions. The anatomic techniques also corrected the abduction and dorsiflexion deformities, although they presented insufficient power to correct for hindfoot valgus. None of the procedures restored the contact characteristics of the talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints to those of a normal condition.ConclusionNonanatomic reconstruction of the spring ligament complex provided the greatest correction for midfoot and hindfoot misalignments in flatfoot. Severe deformities with large amounts of midfoot pronation and hindfoot valgus may be better treated with nonanatomic reconstruction methods. The spring ligament reconstruction method may mitigate the need for nonanatomic bony procedures associated with complications and allows for the preservation of the triple joint complex.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] An in vitro biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:: Single bundle versus anatomical double bundle techniques
    Sasaki, Sandra Umeda
    Mota E Albuquerque, Roberto Freire da
    Martins Pereira, Cesar Augusto
    Gouveia, Guilherme Simoes
    Rodrigues Vilela, Julio Cesar
    Alcaras, Fabio de Lima
    CLINICS, 2008, 63 (01) : 71 - 76
  • [32] Biomechanical Comparison: Single-Bundle versus Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques
    Milles, Jeffrey L.
    Nuelle, Clayton W.
    Pfeiffer, Ferris
    Stannard, James P.
    Smith, Patrick
    Kfuri, Mauricio, Jr.
    Cook, James L.
    JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY, 2017, 30 (04) : 347 - 351
  • [33] The Four fixation Methods in Two-tunnel Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction Technique (Biomechanical evaluation: finite element analysis)
    Kala, Sataporn
    Kwanyuang, Atichart
    13TH BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE (BMEICON 2021), 2018,
  • [34] Finite Element Analysis of Different Osseocartilaginous Reconstruction Techniques in Animal Model Knees
    Cosma, Cosmin
    Apostu, Dragos
    Vilau, Cristian
    Popan, Alexandru
    Oltean-Dan, Daniel
    Balc, Nicolae
    Tomoaie, Gheorghe
    Benea, Horea
    MATERIALS, 2023, 16 (07)
  • [35] Comparison of Tibial Tunnel Techniques in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: C-Arm Versus Anatomic Fovea Landmark
    Lee, Yong Seuk
    Ko, Taeg Su
    Ahn, Jin Hwan
    Kang, Seo Goo
    Choi, Uk Hyun
    Elazab, Ashraf
    Lee, Hyung Rae
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2016, 32 (03): : 487 - 492
  • [36] Initial stability of two PLIF-techniques.: A biomechanical comparison using a finite element model
    Pitzen, T
    Matthis, D
    Caspar, W
    Müller-Storz, H
    Steudel, WI
    ORTHOPADE, 2000, 29 (01): : 68 - 72
  • [37] Validation of the Finite Element Model versus Biomechanical Assessments of Dental Implants and Total Knee Replacements
    Kang, Kwan-Su
    Park, Kwang-Min
    Ahn, Jin-Woo
    Jo, Min-Young
    Oh, Yu-Rim
    Youn, Jin-Ho
    Lee, Jeong-Woo
    Je, Dong-Young
    Jung, Tae-Gon
    BIOENGINEERING-BASEL, 2023, 10 (12):
  • [38] Biomechanical evaluation of intra-articular and extra-articular procedures in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A finite element analysis
    Ramaniraka, N. A.
    Saunier, P.
    Siegrist, O.
    Pioletti, D. P.
    CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2007, 22 (03) : 336 - 343
  • [39] Biomechanical description of CTM brace effect on a scoliotic spine via a finite element model.
    Périé, D
    Hobatho, MC
    De Gauzy, JS
    Montéan, A
    COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING - 3, 2001, : 99 - 104
  • [40] The biomechanical effect of lumbopelvic distance reduction on reconstruction after total sacrectomy: a comparative finite element analysis of four techniques
    Turbucz, Mate
    Pokorni, Agoston Jakab
    Hajnal, Benjamin
    Koch, Kristof
    Szoverfi, Zsolt
    Varga, Peter Pal
    Lazary, Aron
    Eltes, Peter Endre
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 24 (10): : 1981 - 1992