Search Filters

  • Presentation Format
  • Media Type
  • Diagnosis / Condition
  • Diagnosis Method
  • Patient Populations
  • Treatment / Technique

Dual Bracing for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries Restores Native Valgus Laxity and Native Medial Joint Gapping of the Elbow

2021 Congress Paper Abstracts

Dual Bracing for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries Restores Native Valgus Laxity and Native Medial Joint Gapping of the Elbow

Alexander Otto, MD, GERMANY Lukas Nawid Muench, MD, GERMANY Julian Mehl, MD, GERMANY Joshua B. Baldino, PharmD, UNITED STATES ELIFHO OBOPILWE, ME, BSc, UNITED STATES Bastian Scheiderer, MD, GERMANY Andreas B. Imhoff, MD, Prof. Emeritus, GERMANY Augustus D. Mazzocca, MS, MD, UNITED STATES Sebastian Siebenlist, MD, MHBA, Prof., GERMANY

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, UNITED STATES


2021 Congress   Abstract Presentation   5 minutes   Not yet rated

 

Anatomic Location

Anatomic Structure

Diagnosis / Condition

Treatment / Technique

This media is available to ISAKOS 2021: Global Registrants and On Demand purchases only.
Please log in or purchase to access.


Summary: This study provides biomechanical data on valgus stability of a new ligament bracing concept for acute MUCL lesions and shows that native valgus joint laxity as well as native medial joint gapping can be restored by this technique.


Background

Despite growing evidence on the role of the posterior ulnar collateral ligament (pMUCL) in elbow stability, current ligament bracing techniques are mainly focused on the anterior ulnar collateral ligament (aMUCL).
The purpose was to biomechanically compare aMUCL bracing, Dual Bracing that addressed aMUCL as well as pMUCL, and aMUCL reconstruction. It was hypothesized that lesser joint gapping would occur after Dual Bracing in higher degrees of elbow flexion and that Dual Bracing provides equal primary valgus stability.

Methods

21 unpaired human elbows (11 right, 10 left; 57.19 ± 11.72 years) were randomized into 3 groups. Laxity testing was performed with 25 N applied 12 cm distal to the elbow joint for 30 seconds at randomized flexion angles (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120°). After assessment of the native condition the laxity test protocol was repeated for each surgical technique. A calibrated motion capture system (Vicon®) was used for assessment. Repairs were then cyclically tested through a materials testing machine (Bionix 858; MTS Systems) starting with 20 N for 200 cycles at a rate of 0.5 Hz. The load was increased stepwise by 10 N for 200 cycles until displacement reached 5.0 mm or complete failure occurred.

Results

aMUCL bracing and Dual Bracing resulted in significantly (p = 0.045) lower joint gapping in 120° of flexion than aMUCL reconstruction. Between the surgical techniques no significant differences for valgus laxity were found. Each type of surgical repair showed no significant differences between the native and the postoperative state for valgus laxity and joint gapping. There was no significant difference between the different types of surgery for cycles to failure and failure load.

Conclusion

Dual bracing of the medial ulnar collateral was able to restore native valgus joint laxity and medial joint gapping. Furthermore, it was able to restore joint gapping in higher flexion significantly better than aMUCL reconstruction. Dual Bracing reached similar primary stability regarding failure outcomes.


More ISAKOS 2021: Global Content