Mechanical Properties and Characteristics of the Anterolateral and Collateral Ligaments of the Knee

被引:17
作者
Cho, Ho-Jung [1 ]
Kwak, Dai-Soon [1 ]
机构
[1] Catholic Univ Korea, Catholic Inst Appl Anat, Dept Anat, Coll Med, 222 Banpo Daero, Seoul 06591, South Korea
来源
APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL | 2020年 / 10卷 / 18期
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
mechanical property; knee ligament; medial collateral ligament; lateral collateral ligament; anterolateral ligament; STRUCTURAL-PROPERTIES; CRUCIATE; ANATOMY; COMPLEX; RECONSTRUCTION; BIOMECHANICS; TENSION; TENDON;
D O I
10.3390/app10186266
中图分类号
O6 [化学];
学科分类号
0703 ;
摘要
Biomechanical studies assessing the major knee ligaments, such as the anterior cruciate ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL), have been conducted using various methodologies. However, despite the anterolateral ligament (ALL) being regarded as the important ligament for the stability of the knee, a lack of biomechanical research focusing on the ALL exists to date. Moreover, studies assessing the relative mechanical properties of each ligament of the knee are insufficient. Therefore, this study examined the mechanical properties of the ALL, MCL, and LCL and considered the relative differences between these ligaments. Twenty-one fresh cadaver knees were chosen to investigate the mechanical properties. The width, thickness, and length were measured. The stiffness, ultimate load, and elastic modulus were also tested. The MCL showed the greatest ultimate load (498.5 N) and the highest stiffness (71.97 N/mm), and the ALL presented the smallest ultimate load (146.64 N) and lowest stiffness (42.62 N/mm). Meanwhile, the LCL was second concerning the ultimate load (263.22 N) and stiffness (69.70 N/mm). The elastic modulus of the LCL (493.86 MPa) was greater than those of both the MCL and ALL (326.75 MPa and 345.27 MPa, respectively). There was no difference between the sides according to the different properties of all the ligaments. A sex difference was apparent only concerning the ultimate load for all the ligaments. Each ligament showed similar stiffness irrespective of its size; for this reason, stiffness should be considered initially and while conducting biomechanical simulations of these ligaments.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Anterolateral knee biomechanics [J].
Amis, Andrew A. .
KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2017, 25 (04) :1015-1023
[2]  
ARNOUX PJ, 2005, REV EUROP ELEMENTS F, V14, P577
[3]   The role of ligament tension and sensomotoric system in total knee arthroplasty [J].
Becker, Roland ;
Hirschmann, Michael Tobias ;
Karlsson, Jon .
KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2017, 25 (06) :1663-1665
[4]   COMPARISON OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES IN FASCICLE-BONE UNITS FROM HUMAN PATELLAR TENDON AND KNEE LIGAMENTS [J].
BUTLER, DL ;
KAY, MD ;
STOUFFER, DC .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1986, 19 (06) :425-432
[5]   Sex-based differences in the tensile properties of the human anterior cruciate ligament [J].
Chandrashekar, Naveen ;
Mansouri, Hossein ;
Slauterbeck, James ;
Hashemi, Javad .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 2006, 39 (16) :2943-2950
[6]   Anatomical Consideration of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee [J].
Cho, Ho-Jung ;
Kwak, Dai-Soon .
BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 2019
[7]   A new femoral fixation device for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the outside-in technique and hamstring tendon graft: A comparison between two devices in cadaveric human knee models [J].
Chong, Suri ;
Kwak, Dai-Soon ;
Balasubramanian, Dhanasekaraprabu ;
Song, Young Dong ;
Na, Young Gon ;
Kim, Tae Kyun .
KNEE, 2017, 24 (05) :925-932
[8]   Anatomy of the anterolateral ligament of the knee [J].
Claes, Steven ;
Vereecke, Evie ;
Maes, Michael ;
Victor, Jan ;
Verdonk, Peter ;
Bellemans, Johan .
JOURNAL OF ANATOMY, 2013, 223 (04) :321-328
[9]  
Dodds AL, 2014, BONE JOINT J, V96B, P325, DOI [10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.33033, 10.1302/0301620X.96B3.33033]
[10]   Normal Anatomy and Biomechanics of the Knee [J].
Flandry, Fred ;
Hommel, Gabriel .
SPORTS MEDICINE AND ARTHROSCOPY REVIEW, 2011, 19 (02) :82-92