Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume 14, Issue 2 , Pages 207-215, March 2005

A biomechanical comparison of four reconstruction techniques for the medial collateral ligament-deficient elbow

Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Hand and Upper Limb Centre, Lawson Health Research Institute, St Joseph’s Health Care London, London, Ontario, Canada.

The initial strength of the intact medial collateral ligament (MCL) of the elbow and the strength of 4 reconstruction techniques were compared. Twenty cadaveric upper extremities were mounted in a custom jig with the elbow at 90°, and a pneumatic cyclic valgus loading protocol was used. The mean peak load to failure was 142.5 ± 39.4 N for the intact ligaments and 53.0 ± 9.5 N for the docking reconstructions, 52.5 ± 10.4 N for the EndoButton reconstructions, 41.0 ± 16.0 N for the interference screw reconstructions, and 33.3 ± 7.1 N for the figure-eight reconstructions. The peak load to failure of the MCL reconstructions was inferior compared with the intact ligament (P < .001). No difference in strength was found between the docking and single-strand medial collateral reconstruction with the use of an EndoButton for ulnar fixation (P > .05, β = .14). Both of these reconstruction methods were stronger than the interference screw or figure-eight technique (P < .004). The optimal fixation method for a single-strand MCL reconstruction may require improved interference screws or a modified EndoButton procedure.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Funding support was provided by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

PII: S1058-2746(04)00189-2

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.06.006

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume 14, Issue 2 , Pages 207-215, March 2005