Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Biomechanical evaluation of interference screw fixation techniques for distal radioulnar ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric experimental study.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the reconstruction of distal radioulnar ligaments (DRULs), interference screws can be used for antegrade or retrograde fixation of grafts to the ulna. However, the biomechanics of interference screw fixation are currently unknown. This study aimed to determine the biomechanical effects of these two fixations on the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) in a cadaveric model and to investigate the appropriate initial tension. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 30 human cadaver upper extremities were used, and the DRULs were reconstructed according to Adams' procedure. First, eight specimens were randomly divided into two groups: antegrade and retrograde, followed by translational testing and load testing. Then, the other eight specimens were divided into the two groups above, and the contact mechanics, including forces, areas, and pressures, were measured. Finally, to investigate the appropriate initial tension, the remaining 14 specimens were fixed with interference screws under different tensions in an antegrade way, and the translational testing was repeated as before.
resultsIn the neutral position, antegrade fixation exhibited less translation than retrograde fixation (7.21 ± 0.17 mm versus 10.77 ± 1.68 mm, respectively). The maximum failure load was 70.45 ± 6.20 N in antegrade fixation, while that in retrograde fixation was 35.17 ± 2.95 N (P < 0.0001). Antegrade fixation exhibited a larger increase in contact force than retrograde fixation (99.72% ± 23.88% versus 28.18% ± 10.43%) (P = 0.001). The relationship between tension and displacement was nonlinear (Y = - 1.877 ln(x) + 7.94, R
conclusionsCompared with retrograde fixation, the antegrade fixation of interference screws may be a more reliable surgical technique, as it shows a higher failure load and stability. In addition, to avoid the risk of potential arthritis caused by anterograde fixation, we propose an equation to determine the appropriate initial tension in DRUL reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35397657What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.