Biomechanics of a less invasive procedure for reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow

Keith S. Hechtman, Evert W. Tjin-A-Tsoi, John E. Zvijac, John W. Uribe, Loren L. Latta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A reconstruction of the anterior bundle of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow using bone anchors was compared regarding strain and valgus load strength with the intact ulnar collateral ligament and the reconstructed ulnar collateral ligament using bone tunnels. In both normal and reconstructed elbows, the anterior band and posterior band were tight during only a portion of the range of motion. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the anterior band was tight for the normal and bone anchor groups, but lax in the bone tunnel group. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the posterior band was lax in all elbows. Toward flexion, the strain in the anterior band was lax in the normal and bone anchor groups, but tight in the bone tunnel group. The mean of the peak strains for the posterior band toward flexion was tight for all elbows. Mean valgus load strength of normal elbows was 22.7 ± 9.0 N · m. The bone tunnel and bone anchor mean strengths were 76.3% and 63.5%, respectively, of normal elbow strength. We concluded that the bone anchor reproduced the normal anatomy and mechanical function of the ulnar collateral ligament more closely than the bone tunnel, and that both reconstruction methods were significantly weaker than the normal ulnar collateral ligament. However, we found no significant difference in reconstruction strength between bone anchor and bone tunnel.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)620-624
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume26
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 1 1998

Fingerprint

Suture Anchors
Elbow
Biomechanical Phenomena
Bone and Bones
Articular Range of Motion
Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction
Anatomy
Ulnar Collateral Ligament

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Hechtman, K. S., Tjin-A-Tsoi, E. W., Zvijac, J. E., Uribe, J. W., & Latta, L. L. (1998). Biomechanics of a less invasive procedure for reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 26(5), 620-624.

Biomechanics of a less invasive procedure for reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow. / Hechtman, Keith S.; Tjin-A-Tsoi, Evert W.; Zvijac, John E.; Uribe, John W.; Latta, Loren L.

In: American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 26, No. 5, 01.09.1998, p. 620-624.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hechtman, KS, Tjin-A-Tsoi, EW, Zvijac, JE, Uribe, JW & Latta, LL 1998, 'Biomechanics of a less invasive procedure for reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow', American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 620-624.
Hechtman, Keith S. ; Tjin-A-Tsoi, Evert W. ; Zvijac, John E. ; Uribe, John W. ; Latta, Loren L. / Biomechanics of a less invasive procedure for reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow. In: American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1998 ; Vol. 26, No. 5. pp. 620-624.
@article{93c0a9bafd0e44b19502ed925d0a7f09,
title = "Biomechanics of a less invasive procedure for reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow",
abstract = "A reconstruction of the anterior bundle of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow using bone anchors was compared regarding strain and valgus load strength with the intact ulnar collateral ligament and the reconstructed ulnar collateral ligament using bone tunnels. In both normal and reconstructed elbows, the anterior band and posterior band were tight during only a portion of the range of motion. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the anterior band was tight for the normal and bone anchor groups, but lax in the bone tunnel group. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the posterior band was lax in all elbows. Toward flexion, the strain in the anterior band was lax in the normal and bone anchor groups, but tight in the bone tunnel group. The mean of the peak strains for the posterior band toward flexion was tight for all elbows. Mean valgus load strength of normal elbows was 22.7 ± 9.0 N · m. The bone tunnel and bone anchor mean strengths were 76.3{\%} and 63.5{\%}, respectively, of normal elbow strength. We concluded that the bone anchor reproduced the normal anatomy and mechanical function of the ulnar collateral ligament more closely than the bone tunnel, and that both reconstruction methods were significantly weaker than the normal ulnar collateral ligament. However, we found no significant difference in reconstruction strength between bone anchor and bone tunnel.",
author = "Hechtman, {Keith S.} and Tjin-A-Tsoi, {Evert W.} and Zvijac, {John E.} and Uribe, {John W.} and Latta, {Loren L.}",
year = "1998",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "620--624",
journal = "American Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0363-5465",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanics of a less invasive procedure for reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow

AU - Hechtman, Keith S.

AU - Tjin-A-Tsoi, Evert W.

AU - Zvijac, John E.

AU - Uribe, John W.

AU - Latta, Loren L.

PY - 1998/9/1

Y1 - 1998/9/1

N2 - A reconstruction of the anterior bundle of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow using bone anchors was compared regarding strain and valgus load strength with the intact ulnar collateral ligament and the reconstructed ulnar collateral ligament using bone tunnels. In both normal and reconstructed elbows, the anterior band and posterior band were tight during only a portion of the range of motion. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the anterior band was tight for the normal and bone anchor groups, but lax in the bone tunnel group. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the posterior band was lax in all elbows. Toward flexion, the strain in the anterior band was lax in the normal and bone anchor groups, but tight in the bone tunnel group. The mean of the peak strains for the posterior band toward flexion was tight for all elbows. Mean valgus load strength of normal elbows was 22.7 ± 9.0 N · m. The bone tunnel and bone anchor mean strengths were 76.3% and 63.5%, respectively, of normal elbow strength. We concluded that the bone anchor reproduced the normal anatomy and mechanical function of the ulnar collateral ligament more closely than the bone tunnel, and that both reconstruction methods were significantly weaker than the normal ulnar collateral ligament. However, we found no significant difference in reconstruction strength between bone anchor and bone tunnel.

AB - A reconstruction of the anterior bundle of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow using bone anchors was compared regarding strain and valgus load strength with the intact ulnar collateral ligament and the reconstructed ulnar collateral ligament using bone tunnels. In both normal and reconstructed elbows, the anterior band and posterior band were tight during only a portion of the range of motion. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the anterior band was tight for the normal and bone anchor groups, but lax in the bone tunnel group. Toward extension, the mean peak strain in the posterior band was lax in all elbows. Toward flexion, the strain in the anterior band was lax in the normal and bone anchor groups, but tight in the bone tunnel group. The mean of the peak strains for the posterior band toward flexion was tight for all elbows. Mean valgus load strength of normal elbows was 22.7 ± 9.0 N · m. The bone tunnel and bone anchor mean strengths were 76.3% and 63.5%, respectively, of normal elbow strength. We concluded that the bone anchor reproduced the normal anatomy and mechanical function of the ulnar collateral ligament more closely than the bone tunnel, and that both reconstruction methods were significantly weaker than the normal ulnar collateral ligament. However, we found no significant difference in reconstruction strength between bone anchor and bone tunnel.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031691891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031691891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9784806

AN - SCOPUS:0031691891

VL - 26

SP - 620

EP - 624

JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0363-5465

IS - 5

ER -