Central Slip Reconstruction With a Distally Based Flexor Digitorum Superficialis Slip: A Biomechanical Study.

PURPOSE: The ideal method of central slip reconstruction is difficult to determine due to the multitude of techniques, nonstandardized outcome reporting, and small patient series in the literature. Although most boutonniere deformities may be treated with nonsurgical measures, chronic, subacute, or open injuries may require operative intervention. To aid surgeons in the choice of the ideal central slip reconstruction method, this biomechanical study compared the 3 most common methods performed at our institution: direct repair, lateral band centralization, and distally-based flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) slip repair. METHODS: A boutonniere deformity was induced in 35 fresh-frozen cadaver digits. The central slip was repaired in 9 digits using a primary suture repair, in 9 digits using a lateral band centralization technique, and in 9 digits using a distally-based FDS slip reconstruction. A control group without injury was tested in 8 digits. Following repair or reconstruction, each digit was tested for load to failure, strain, and stiffness at the repair. RESULTS: The average load to failure after central slip reconstruction was significantly greater for a distally based FDS slip method at 82.1 ± 14.6 N (95% CI, 62.2-101.9 N) than all other repair types. Although the FDS slip reconstruction was not as strong as the intact state (82.1 N vs 156.2 N, respectively), it was 2.6 times stronger than the lateral band centralization (82.1 N vs 31.6 N, respectively) and 3 times stronger than a primary repair (82.1 N vs 27.6 N, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of the central slip using a distally-based FDS slip provided the greatest biomechanical strength compared with the direct repair or lateral band centralization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of a distally based reconstruction using FDS may allow for safer early motion.

Compressive Strength of Midfoot Fusion Nail vs Midfoot Fusion Bolt and Role of Subtalar Fusion in Midfoot Charcot Fixation Model.

BACKGROUND: Operative management of midfoot Charcot arthropathy often involves an extended midfoot arthrodesis with intramedullary bolts for fixation, a method called "beaming." Recently intramedullary nails have been introduced for the same indication, presumably providing stronger fixation. This study compares midfoot fusion nails to bolts with regard to stiffness and compressive ability. Additionally, we assessed how the addition of a subtalar fusion affects the construct. METHODS: Medial column fusions were performed on 10 matched cadaver foot specimens with either a midfoot fusion nail or bolt. Specimens underwent cyclical compression loading, and displacement was measured. Separately, compressive forces produced were compared between the 2 fixation constructs using a synthetic bone block model. Lastly, another 10 matched specimens with midfoot fusion nails were evaluated with or without subtalar fusions. RESULTS: No differences in stiffness were found in comparing matched specimens between nail vs bolt or comparing nail only without subtalar fusion (STF) vs nail with STF. The compressive force produced by the nail specimens was significantly and substantially greater than the bolted specimens (751.7 vs 139.0 N, P = .01). The accumulated height drop at the midfoot after cycling was 0.5 mm more in the nail group than in the bolt group (1.72 vs 1.22 mm, P = .008). The nail with STF group had greater initial height drop at the midfoot than the nail-only group (0.68 vs 0.34 mm, P = .035) with similar initial height drop at the ankle. However, there were no differences in strength among the matched pairs of midfoot nail-only vs midfoot nail with STF as measured by displacement after fatigue or maximum force at load to failure. CONCLUSION: The overall cadaveric comparisons between matched pairs of nails vs bolts, and nail-only vs nail with STF, did not provide noteworthy differences between the groups with regard to strength or stiffness. However, the compressive force of the midfoot fusion nail was far superior to the bolt in a synthetic bone model. These data provide valuable insight comparing implants used in Charcot midfoot arthrodesis.

Biomechanical Assessment of Bicortical Suspension Device Fixation for Proximal Tibiofibular Joint Instability: Single Versus Double Device.

BACKGROUND: Bicortical suspension device (BCSD) fixation treats proximal tibiofibular joint (PTFJ) instability in both the anterolateral and posteromedial directions. However, biomechanical data are lacking as to whether this technique restores the native stability and strength of the joint. PURPOSE: To test (1) if BCSD fixation restores the native stability and strength and (2) if using 2 devices is needed. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Sixteen pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were obtained. Six pairs were assigned to the control group and 10 matched pairs assigned for transection to model PTFJ and subsequent BCSD fixation (one specimen with 1-device repair and the other with 2-device repair). Joint stability and strength were assessed by translating the fibular head relative to the fixed tibia either anterolaterally or posteromedially. Control specimens received 20 cycles of 0- to 2.5-mm joint displacement tests (subfailure) and then proceeded to load to failure (5 mm). For the experimental group, cyclic tests were repeated after ligament resection and after fixation. Forces and stiffness at 2.5- and 5-mm displacement were recorded for comparisons of joint strength and stability at subfailure and failure loads, respectively. RESULTS: After repair of anterolateral instability, both the single- and double-device fixations successfully restored near-native states, with no significant differences as compared with the intact group for forces at subfailure load (P = .410) or failure load (P = .397). Regarding posteromedial instability, single-device repair did not restore forces to the near-native state at subfailure load (intact: 92.9 N vs single: 37.4 N; P = .001) or failure load (intact: 170.7 N vs single: 70.4 N; P = .024). However, the double-device repair successfully restored near-native posteromedial forces at both subfailure load (P = .066) and failure load (P = .723). CONCLUSION: For treatment of the most common form of PTFJ instability (anterolateral), this cadaveric study suggests that 1 BCSD is sufficient to restore stability and strength. The current biomechanical results also suggest that 2 devices are needed for restoring PTFJ posteromedial stability and strength. Using 2 devices addresses both types of instability and provides more PTFJ posteromedial stability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results suggest that 1 device should be used for treating anterolateral instability and 2 devices used for posteromedial instability based on the biomechanical study.