Materials and methods: The Duncan, HU, SMC, Pretzel, Nicky's and square knots were selected for comparisons with UM knot. All knots were prepared with size 2 HiFi® suture by a single experienced surgeon and tested with cyclic loading and load to failure tests. The ease of learning was assessed objectively by recording the time to learn the first correct knot and the total number of knots completed in 5 min by surgeons and trainees.
Results: The UM knot average failure load is significantly superior to the HU knot (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight rabbits were randomized into Giftbox and Krackow groups. Tenotomy was performed on the Achilles tendon of one side of the lower limb and repaired with the respective techniques. The contralateral limb served as control. Subjects were euthanized six weeks post-operative, and both repaired and control Achilles tendons were harvested for biomechanical tensile test.
RESULTS: The means of maximum load to rupture and tenacity in the Giftbox group (156.89 ± 38.49 N and 159.98 ± 39.25 gf/tex) were significantly different than Krackow's (103.55 ± 27.48 N and 104.91 ± 26.96 gf/tex, both p = 0.043).
CONCLUSION: The tendons repaired with Giftbox technique were biomechanically stronger than those repaired with Krackow technique after six weeks of tendon healing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We traced CT scans of 106 knees with no patellofemoral pathology from 59 subjects from the database system and converted all 2-D images into 3-D models to determine the values for each parameter. We compared the intra- and interobserver reliability of each method using intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland-Altman method.
RESULTS: The values of TT-TG measured by 2-D and 3-D methods were 16.1 ± 4.6 mm and 16.2 ± 4.2 mm, respectively. The ICC values of both methods were comparable (95% limits of agreement between the same observer: - 3.3 to 3.8 mm versus - 2.4 to 2.7 mm and different observers: - 4.3 to 4.9 mm versus - 3.9 to 2.7 mm), with 3-D method results in narrower limits of agreement.
CONCLUSION: TT-TG measurement is reliable using the 2-D method without using advanced radiographic software. The 3-D method of measuring TT-TG provides measurement with narrower variation when compared with the 2-D method. However, both TT-TG distances' measurement methods in the current study were comparable as the variations are not significant.