Robotic evaluation of a 3D-printed scaffold for reconstruction of scapholunate interosseous ligament rupture: a biomechanical cadaveric study


Abstract

Background Rupture of the scapholunate (SL) interosseous ligament (SLIL) is a challenging injury to treat surgically due to the small and complex nature of the SL linkage. This study was a preliminary robotic assessment of the immediate biomechanical effects of a novel 3D-printed scaffold used to reconstruct the ruptured SLIL. Methods Nine minimally loaded cadaveric wrists underwent robotically manipulated flexion-extension and radial-ulnar deviation under conditions of intact, transected, and reconstructed SLIL. Simulated radiographic measures (i.e., SL angle and SL gap) and three-dimensional SL gap across wrist motions were used to assess static and dynamic stability of the reconstructed SLIL. Results Three cadaveric specimens produced complete results across all experimental conditions. Intact SL linkage had a SL angle comparable (but slightly lower) than normative literature values. Once the native SLIL was transected, SL angle disruption was evident, and largely restored once the scaffold was surgically installed. Similar results were seen for SL gap. Results of the dynamic three-dimensional SL gap indicated the scaffold restored dynamic stability to a limited extent. Conclusion Static and dynamic stability of the SL linkage was not compromised by surgical installation of the scaffold. Scaffold installation provided limited restoration of SL linkage towards native values, however, the small number of cadaveric specimens and minimal articular loading applied to the radiocarpal joint limits generalization. Overall, the scaffold may provide adequate mechanical fixation of the SL linkage and enable biological ingrowth of ligament.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.