Interaction between the ACL graft and MCL in a combined ACL+MCL knee injury using a goat model

Abstract

Interaction between the ACL graft and MCL in a combined ACL+MCL knee injury using a goat model, Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 71:4, 387-393,

Suture augmentation following ACL injury to restore the function of the ACL, MCL, and medial meniscus in the goat stifle joint

“…In fact, the values for ATT within 2-3 mm on the intact joint results shown in this study were similar to those for ACL reconstruction in the goat model (Abramowitch et al, 2003;Ma et al, 2000;Papageorgiou et al, 2001aPapageorgiou et al, , 2001b as well as other studies examining mechanical augmentation using sutures (Fleming et al, 2008;Seitz et al, 2008). Meanwhile, the in-situ forces in the augmentation sutures in response to the 67 N anterior tibial load were also similar to those for the intact ACL.…”

“…In terms of the relative contribution between the soft tissues, we found that the ACL was indeed the primary restraint to excessive anterior tibial translation, while the MCL and MM played minor roles, similar to the literature (Jackson et al, 1999;Ma et al, 2000;Papageorgiou et al, 2001aPapageorgiou et al, , 2001bSakane et al, 1999). With ACLdeficiency, small increases in the loading of the MCL (9-15 N) were observed following transection of the ACL.…”

“…Even small changes in joint kinematics may lead to substantial alterations in their loading. In our research center, we have shown that transecting the ACL led to large increases in the in-situ forces within both the MCL and MM (Allen et al, 2000;Ma et al, 2000;Papageorgiou et al, 2001aPapageorgiou et al, , 2001bSakane et al, 1999). Similarly, in-vivo goat studies following ACL transection found degenerative changes in the MM as early as 8 months (Jackson et al, 1999).…”

The Mechanism of Non-contact Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Female Athletes: Is the Injury Mechanism Different between the Genders?

“…The ACL and MCL may protect each other during valgus loading, as reported by Ma et al [201], who utilized the robot/universal force sensor system to determine the in situ forces of the ACL and MCL in response to valgus load. The authors found that ACL deficiency can increase the in situ force on the MCL, while ACL reconstruction can reduce the in situ forces on the MCL in response to an anterior tibial load.…”

Consideration of growth factors and bio-scaffolds for treatment of combined grade II MCL and ACL injury

“…Kennedy et al [35] and Noyes et al [53] reported that surgical observation of preserved MCL continuity following ACL injury often leads to the false assumption that it is functionally competent. Load sharing between the MCL and ACL is such that ACL deficiency increases in situ MCL forces, and ACL reconstruction reduces in situ MCL forces in response to anterior tibial translation and external valgus knee stresses [46]. Combined Grade II MCL-ACL injuries are more functionally debilitating than isolated MCL injury [78][79][80].…”