These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Kinematic analysis of two scapholunate ligament reconstruction techniques.
    Author: Chae S, Nam J, Park IJ, Shin SS, McGarry MH, Lee TQ.
    Journal: J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong); 2021; 29(2):23094990211025830. PubMed ID: 34189986.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: This study compares the kinematic changes after the procedures for scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) reconstruction-the modified Brunelli technique (MBT) and Mark Henry's technique (MHT). METHODS: Ten cadaveric wrists were used. The scapholunate (SL) interval and angle and radiolunate (RL) angle were recorded using the MicroScribe system. The SL interval was measured by dividing the volar and dorsal portions. Four motions of the wrist were performed-neutral, flexion, extension, and clenched fist (CF) positions-and compared among five conditions: (1) intact wrist, (2) volar SLIL resection, (3) whole SLIL resection, (4) MBT reconstruction, and (5) MHT reconstruction. RESULTS: Under the whole SLIL resection condition, the dorsal SL intervals were widened in all positions. In all positions, the dorsal SL intervals were restored after MBT and MHT. The volar SL interval widened in the extension position after volar SLIL resection. The volar SL interval was not restored in the extension position after MBT and MHT. The SL angle increased in the neutral and CF positions under the whole SLIL resection condition. The SL angle was not restored in the neutral and CF positions after MBT and MHT. The RL angle increased in the neutral and CF positions under the whole SLIL resection condition. The RL angle was not restored in the neutral and CF positions after MBT and MHT. CONCLUSION: The MBT and MHT may restore the dorsal SL interval. No significant differences in restoration of the SL interval between MBT and MHT were found in the cadaveric models. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: No significant differences between MBT and MHT were found in the cadaveric models for SLIL reconstruction. When considering the complications due to volar incision and additional procedures in MHT, MBT may be a more efficient technique in terms of operative time and injury of the anterior structures during surgery, but further research is needed.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]