A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Biomechanical evaluation of MPFL reconstructions: differences in dynamic contact pressure between gracilis and fascia lata graft. | LitMetric

Biomechanical evaluation of MPFL reconstructions: differences in dynamic contact pressure between gracilis and fascia lata graft.

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann, Potsdam/Bad Belzig, Germany.

Published: August 2017

Purpose: To evaluate the knee kinematics of the intact, MPFL-ruptured and MPFL-reconstructed knee and, moreover, to compare dynamic patellofemoral contact pressure of the gracilis tendon and the fascia lata as an alternative graft option for reconstruction of the MPFL.

Methods: Eight paired human cadaveric knees were fixed in a custom-made fixation device. Patellofemoral contact pressure was assessed during a dynamic flexion movement at 15°-30°-45°-60°-75° and 90° using a pressure-sensitive film (Tekscan). The medial patellofemoral ligament was cut, and measurements were repeated. Finally, reconstruction of the MPFL was performed using the gracilis tendon (group I) or a fascia lata graft (group II). Tunnel localization was performed under fluoroscopic control. Grafts were fixed at 30° of flexion, and pressure measurements were repeated.

Results: Incision of the medial patellofemoral ligament significantly reduced patellofemoral contact pressure at 15°, 30° and 45° of knee flexion compared to the intact knee (p < 0.05), whereas reconstruction of the MPFL using either gracilis tendon of the fascia lata was able to restore pressure distributions at 15° and 30° of knee flexion. However, in the hamstring group, reconstruction of the MPFL revealed a significantly reduced contact pressure at 45° of flexion (p = 0.038) compared to the intact knee. In the fascia lata group, a significant reduction in patellofemoral contact pressure was observed after MPFL reconstruction at 45°, 60°, 75° and 90° of knee flexion (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Anatomic reconstruction of the MPFL with either a gracilis or a fascia lata graft showed comparable patellofemoral pressure distributions which were closely restored compared to the native knee. Therefore, the fascia lata has shown to be a viable alternative to the gracilis tendon for reconstruction of the MPFL. However, anatomic reconstruction of the MPFL may lead to persistently altered patellofemoral contact pressure during knee flexion compared to the native knee independent of the tested graft.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4005-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

contact pressure
16
fascia lata
12
patellofemoral contact
12
pressure gracilis
8
lata graft
8
gracilis tendon
8
medial patellofemoral
8
patellofemoral ligament
8
pressure
5
patellofemoral
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!