Search

To compare the biomechanical characteristics of a single radially expanding all-suture anchor with an interference screw for open subpectoral long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) tenodesis.Eighteen fresh-frozen matched-pair human cadaveric humeri were used for this biomechanical study. The matched pair humeri were randomly assigned into 2 experimental biceps tenodesis groups: conventional interference screw (CIS) or all-suture suture anchor (ASSA). Open subpectoral LHBT tenodesis was then performed and biomechanical testing was performed using a servohydraulic test frame. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes before cyclic loading. Displacement was recorded at cycle 300 (D300) and cycle 500 (D500) and at ultimate failure. Data recorded included displacement, load to failure, displacement at failure. Paired t test was used for analysis.Decreased displacement was observed for the CIS group at D300 (1.67 ± 0.57 mm vs 3.35 ± 2.24 mm; P = .04), D500 (2.00 ± 0.76 mm vs 3.87 ± 2.20 mm; P = .04), and at failure (5.17 ± 3.05 mm vs 10.76 ± 2.66 mm; P.001). Load to failure was lower in CIS specimens (170 ± 24.5 N vs 217.8 ± 51.54 N; P = .02). Failure in each case was tendon pullout for all CIS specimens; in ASSA 6 specimens failed as the suture pulled through the tendon, 2 specimens failed by suture breakage. No difference in stiffness was observed between the 2 groups (CIS = 98.33 ± 22.98 N/m vs ASSA = 75.94 ± 44.83 N/m; P = .20).Our study found that open subpectoral biceps tenodesis performed with an ASSA construct results in increased load to failure as compared with CIS. However, the CIS did demonstrate decreased displacement as compared to ASSA in this cadaveric biomechanical study.ASSA and CIS at time zero provide fixation as indicated by the provider intraoperatively for LHBT tenodesis. ASSA, however, does remove less cortical bone than does CIS and therefore produces a smaller stress riser in the proximal humerus. Further testing as to the integrity of ASSA is warranted to determine the integrity of the tenodesis with cyclical loading.

Background Lisfranc ligamentous injuries are complex, and their treatment, along with the preferred method of fixation, is controversial. Implementing a flexible synthetic augmentation device (fibertape) has been described as an alternative to traditional screw fixation. This biomechanical study evaluated two fibertape devices with interference screw fixation: InternalBrace, and InternalBrace with supplementary intercuneiform stabilization. Methods The diastasis and relative angular displacement between bones were measured at three midfoot joints in the Lisfranc articulation. Measurements were obtained for the pre-injured, injured, and post-fixation stages under static loading. Specimens then underwent stepwise increases in cyclic loading performed at 1 Hz and 100 cycles, at 100 N ground reaction force intervals from 500 to 1200 N to simulate postoperative loading, and then up to 1800 N to simulate high loads. Failure of fixation was defined as diastasis greater than 2 millimeters at the second-metatarsal – medial-cuneiform joint. Results InternalBrace specimens demonstrated failures in 3 of 9 (33%) specimens at cyclic loads of 1000 N. Conversely, InternalBrace with Supplementary Limb specimens had 1 failure at 1200 N. The difference in diastasis at the second metatarsal-medial cuneiform joint was statistically significant between the two groups at higher loads of 1600N (p = 0.019) and 1800N (p = 0.029). Conclusion The use of InternalBrace for ligamentous Lisfranc injuries appears to provide a biomechanically viable alternative for withstanding early postoperative protected weight bearing. Furthermore, the use of a supplementary limb in addition to the InternalBrace fibertape fixation method appears to enhance its biomechanical efficacy.

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Used intimately to qualify the use of new surgical devices, advance new surgical techniques and evaluate faculty performance with regard to patient satisfaction and outcomes, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonplace across all sub-specialties in orthopaedics. Despite their theorized utility, these interactive tools are burdensome in clinic and their true utility is anecdotally in question. No prior study to the best of our knowledge has investigated the degree at which patients find them useful or even appropriate measures to objectify their injuries or state of recovery. The purpose of this study is to ascertain patient perceptions of the utility of commonly used patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in foot and ankle surgery. Methods: After IRB approval, consecutive patients visiting a foot and ankle surgery outpatient clinic (either new or return) will be asked to complete a survey assessing their attitudes toward commonly used PROMs relevant to foot and ankle surgery. Upon verbal consent, patients will be asked a short series of demographic questions including: age, whether they are a new patient, sex, education level, disability status, current region of residence, and history of opiate use. After completion, patients will be shown the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) tool to quantify pain and asked two questions: 1) concerning effectiveness and 2) concerning their personal perceptions. Next, patients will be shown a single PROM used pertaining to their injury (eg, Foot & Ankle Disability Index (FADI)). All patient will comment on their perceptions of the VAS and one additional PROM specific to the sub-specialty in which there are seeking treatment. Results: We report a total of 39 patients in this preliminary data set (49% males, 51% females) with a mean age of 51 (range, 19 - 83). A majority of patients reported that both VAS and FADI are effective PROMs in foot and ankle surgery. Additionally, patients reported that there is no benefit to artificially inflating their PROMs to receive better/more-prompt patient care. These findings were independent of history of opiate use, disability, gender, or age cohort (Figure 1). Conclusion: The results of this study show that the majority of patients visiting a foot and ankle surgeon in the outpatient setting perceive both VAS and FADI are effective tools to describe their respective foot/ankle condition. Patients report, in this preliminary sample, do not ‘game’ these PROMs to receive better care though these study findings are subject to the Hawthorne Effect.

Category: Trauma; Basic Sciences/Biologics; Midfoot/Forefoot; Sports Introduction/Purpose: Lisfranc ligamentous injuries are complex. Controversy exists regarding their treatment and preferred method of fixation. Fixation methods employing a FiberTape device and interference screw fixation have been described as an alternative to traditional screw fixation. The purpose of this biomechanical study was to evaluate two methods of fixation utilizing interference screw fixation with FiberTape augmentation in a cadaveric model. Methods: 9 paired cadaveric feet (mid tibia/fibula) were separated into two groups based on fixation method: FiberTape alone and FiberTape with supplementary limb into the middle cuneiform via anchor. At three joints of the midfoot (second metatarsal - medial cuneiform, intermediate cuneiform - medial cuneiform, second metatarsal - intermediate cuneiform), the diastasis and relative angular displacement between bones in the coronal plane were measured for static and cyclic loading. Measurements were obtained for the native (pre-injured), injured, and post-fixation in static loading. Fixed specimens then underwent stepwise increases in cyclic loading performed at 1 Hz and 100 cycles, at 100 N intervals from 500 to 1800 N ground reaction force. The Achilles tendon was also loaded to simulate postoperative weightbearing. Failure of fixation was defined as diastasis at the second metatarsal - medial cuneiform joint greater than 2 millimeters. Results: FiberTape specimens demonstrated diastasis failures of 3 of 9 (33%) specimens at cyclic loads of 1000 N. Conversely, FiberTape with supplementary limb specimens all survived past this loading magnitude, with 1 failing at supraphysiologic loads (>1200 N). The difference in diastasis at the second metatarsal-medial cuneiform joint was statistically significant between the two groups at forces of 1600N (p = 0.019) and 1800N (p = 0.029). There were no significant differences between the other joint diastases and relative angular displacements. Conclusion: The use of FiberTape for fixation of ligamentous Lisfranc injuries appears to provide a biomechanically viable alternative for withstanding early post-operative protected weightbearing. Furthermore, the use of a supplementary limb in addition to the FiberTape fixation method appears to enhance its biomechanical efficacy under cyclic loading especially at higher loads.

Category: Ankle Introduction/Purpose: In an estimated 70% of cases of Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity (AAFD) reconstruction, the spring ligament is elongated and/or damaged. Spring ligament reefing can be performed through several techniques including augmentation with Fibertape devices. In addition, biomechanical studies have demonstrated its safety and suggest early weight bearing may be performed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of early weight bearing following flatfoot reconstruction with use of InternalBrace augmentation for spring ligament reefing when performed in combination with medical displacing calcaneal osteotomy (MCO) and FDL tendon transfer. Methods: From 2016-2018, 45 patients underwent flatfoot reconstruction (MCO, FDL transfer, and gastrocnemius recession) with spring ligament reefing and augmentation with the InternalBrace device. All surgeries were performed by the senior orthopaedic surgeons (PJJ & MCA). Institutional early post-operative weight bearing protocol involves weight bearing as tolerated in a splint with crutches for two weeks, transitioning at 2 weeks to a Cam boot with 1 wedge WBAT. At 4 weeks, the patient is weaned off crutches and recommended to start therapy restricting excessive eversion and concentrating on calf strengthening, gait, and ROM. At weeks 6-8 they are weaned from the Cam boot into lace up ASO and shoe with arch support. Data were recorded at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months and at yearly intervals. Outcomes and complications were documented. Results: Of the 45 cases there were no complications related to early weight bearing. Radiographic bony union rate of the MCO was 100% (45/45). Moreover, there was no loss of fixation of either the FDL transfer or spring ligament reefing with InternalBrace augmentation with early weight bearing. Lastly, radiographic evaluation noted no loss of Meary’s talo-first metatarsal angle when comparing initial postoperative radiographic to their final follow up. Additional complications in our cohort included the following: removal of painful hardware (1, 2.22%), sural neuritis (2, 4.44%), superficial cellulitis (1, 4.44%), and delayed lateral wound healing (1, 2.22%). Conclusion: Preliminary data shows that early protected weight bearing after flatfoot reconstruction and augmentation of the spring ligament with the InternalBrace device is safe and demonstrates few complications and no early loss of correction.

Category: Ankle; Sports Introduction/Purpose: Augmentation of the Broström procedure with FiberTape device has been described for the treatment of chronic ankle instability. However, it has yet to be determined if the cost of the implant is negated by the benefits to the patient. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive cost analysis by comparing the cost of surgical procedure, physical therapy visits, time off work, and any costs related to revision surgery between the Broström reconstruction with suture anchors alone versus augmentation with a FiberTape device. Methods: 166 patients undergoing lateral ankle ligament repair were analyzed retrospectively. Patients underwent either a modified Broström ligament repair with two suture anchors or Broström ligament repair with FiberTape augmentation. All patients followed the same post-operative protocol for early weight bearing and initiation of physical therapy once the wound was healed. Timing of return to work and the total number of visits of physical therapy before discharge were recorded. Implant costs, facility charges and professional fees were obtained from billing records. Lost income for missed days of work was based on the Pennsylvania Bureau of Labor Statistics. Complications requiring return to the operating room were recorded. Patients were followed out to one year. Results: Aggregate cost in the modified Broström group was $2,219 more expensive than when augmenting with FiberTape ($20,970 vs. $18,751) despite an increased implant cost of $900. This difference was the result of a greater number of therapy visits and days out of work in the modified Broström group versus the augmentation group (14.9 vs 12.4) as well as a significantly higher amount of days out of work in the modified Broström group versus augmentation (63.3 vs. 53.8 days respectively). No statistically significant difference was found for operation time between groups, and failure rates were similar; 2.0% (1/49) for FiberTape and 3.4% (4/117) for modified Broström. Conclusion: The aim of this study was to explore the cost comparison of the modified Broström procedure for chronic ankle instability versus the FiberTape augmentation. Despite an upfront increase in implant costs, the average cost per procedure was lower for the augmentation group. The majority of cost savings occurred in decreases in the number of physical therapy visits and faster return to work times. The results of this study suggest that the use of FiberTape to augment modified Broström repair may have a financial benefit and cost savings to patients and the healthcare system.