Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Nonanatomic versus anatomic techniques in spring ligament reconstruction: biomechanical assessment via a finite element model.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Apr 29; 14(1):114.JO

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several 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.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

Nonanatomic 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.

CONCLUSION

Nonanatomic 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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, China.Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, China.Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, China.Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, China. liuhua345@163.com.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

31036018

Citation

Xu, Can, et al. "Nonanatomic Versus Anatomic Techniques in Spring Ligament Reconstruction: Biomechanical Assessment Via a Finite Element Model." Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 14, no. 1, 2019, p. 114.
Xu C, Li MQ, Wang C, et al. Nonanatomic versus anatomic techniques in spring ligament reconstruction: biomechanical assessment via a finite element model. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):114.
Xu, C., Li, M. Q., Wang, C., & Liu, H. (2019). Nonanatomic versus anatomic techniques in spring ligament reconstruction: biomechanical assessment via a finite element model. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 14(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1154-5
Xu C, et al. Nonanatomic Versus Anatomic Techniques in Spring Ligament Reconstruction: Biomechanical Assessment Via a Finite Element Model. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Apr 29;14(1):114. PubMed PMID: 31036018.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Nonanatomic versus anatomic techniques in spring ligament reconstruction: biomechanical assessment via a finite element model. AU - Xu,Can, AU - Li,Ming Qing, AU - Wang,Chenggong, AU - Liu,Hua, Y1 - 2019/04/29/ PY - 2019/01/22/received PY - 2019/04/12/accepted PY - 2019/5/1/entrez PY - 2019/5/1/pubmed PY - 2019/5/1/medline KW - Contact characteristics KW - Finite element KW - Flatfoot KW - Nonanatomic KW - Spring ligament reconstruction SP - 114 EP - 114 JF - Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research JO - J Orthop Surg Res VL - 14 IS - 1 N2 - BACKGROUND: Several 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Nonanatomic 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. CONCLUSION: Nonanatomic 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. SN - 1749-799X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/31036018/Nonanatomic_versus_anatomic_techniques_in_spring_ligament_reconstruction:_biomechanical_assessment_via_a_finite_element_model_ L2 - https://josr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13018-019-1154-5 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -