↓ Skip to main content

Is Dual Semitendinosus Allograft Stronger Than Turndown for Achilles Tendon Reconstruction? An In Vitro Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Is Dual Semitendinosus Allograft Stronger Than Turndown for Achilles Tendon Reconstruction? An In Vitro Analysis
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5410-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael C. Aynardi, Lara C. Atwater, Roshan Melvani, Brent G. Parks, Adrian G. Paez, Stuart D. Miller

Abstract

Large Achilles tendon defects pose a treatment challenge. The standard treatment with a turndown flap requires a large extensile incision, puts the sural nerve at risk, and demands slow, careful rehabilitation. Dual allograft semitendinosus reconstruction is a new clinical alternative that has the theoretical advantages of a smaller incision, less dissection, and a stronger construct that may allow for faster rehabilitation. In a cadaver biomechanical model, we compared the dual allograft semitendinosus reconstruction with the myofascial turndown in terms of (1) mechanical strength and resistance to deformation and (2) failure mechanisms in reconstruction of large segmental Achilles defects. An 8-cm segmental Achilles defect was created in 18 cadaveric lower extremities, nine matched pairs without defect or previous surgery (mean age, 78.4 years; range, 60-97 years; three female and six male pairs). Femoral neck densitometry to determine bone mineral density found that all specimens except two were osteopenic or osteoporotic. Specimens in each pair were assigned to allograft or turndown reconstruction. The constructs were mounted on a load frame and differential variable reluctance transducers were applied to measure deformation. Specimens were preconditioned and then loaded axially. Tensile force and proximal and distal construct deformation were measured at clinical failure, defined as 10 mm of displacement, and at ultimate failure, defined as failure of the reconstruction. Failure mechanism was recorded. Tensile strength at time zero was higher in the allograft versus the turndown construct at clinical failure (156.9 ± 29.7 N versus 107.2 ± 20.0 N, respectively; mean difference, -49.7 N; 95% CI, -66.3 to -33.0 N; p < 0.001) and at ultimate failure (290.9 ± 83.2 N versus 140.7 ± 43.5 N, respectively; mean difference, -150.2 N; 95% CI, -202.9 to -97.6 N; p < 0.001). Distal construct deformation was lower in the turndown versus the allograft construct at clinical failure (1.6 ± 1.0 mm versus 4.7 ± 0.7 mm medially and 2.2 ± 1.0 mm versus 4.8 ± 1.1 mm laterally; p < 0.001). Semitendinosus allograft failure occurred via calcaneal bone bridge fracture in eight of nine specimens. All myofascial turndowns failed via suture pullout through the fascial tissue at its insertion. In this comparative biomechanical study, dual semitendinosus allograft reconstruction showed greater tensile strength and construct deformation compared with myofascial turndown in a cadaveric model of large Achilles tendon defects. Further study of dual semitendinosus allograft for treatment of severe Achilles tendon defects with cyclic loading and investigation of clinical results will better elucidate the clinical utility and indications for this technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,742,933
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,933
of 7,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,430
of 331,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#38
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,803 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.