Augmented Ulnar Collateral Ligament Repair With Structural Bioinductive Scaffold: A Biomechanical Study

Abstract

Background: Elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) repair with suture brace augmentation shows good time-zero biomechanical strength and a more rapid return to play compared with UCL reconstruction. However, there are concerns about overconstraint or stress shielding with nonabsorbable suture tape. Recently, a collagen-based bioinductive absorbable structural scaffold has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for augmentation of soft tissue repair. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study aimed to assess the initial biomechanical performance of UCL repair augmented with this scaffold. We hypothesized that adding the bioinductive absorbable structural scaffold to primary UCL repair would impart additional time-zero restraint to the valgus opening. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Eight cadaveric elbow specimens—from midforearm to midhumerus—were utilized. In the native state, elbows underwent valgus stress testing at 30o, 60o, and 90o of flexion, with a cyclical valgus rotational torque. Changes in valgus rotation from 2- to 5-N·m torque were recorded as valgus gapping. Testing was then performed in 4 states: (1) native intact UCL—with dissection through skin, fascia, and muscle down to an intact UCL complex; (2) UCL-transected—distal transection of the ligament off the sublime tubercle; (3) augmented repair with bioinductive absorbable scaffold; and (4) repair alone without scaffold. The order of testing of repair states was alternated to account for possible plastic deformation during testing. Results: The UCL-transected state showed the greatest increase in valgus gapping of all states at all flexion angles. Repair alone showed similar valgus gapping to that of the UCL-transected state at 30° (P = .62) and 60° of flexion (P = .11). Bioinductive absorbable scaffold–augmented repair showed less valgus gapping compared with repair alone at all flexion angles (P = .021, P = .024, and P = .024 at 30°, 60°, and 90°, respectively). Scaffold-augmented repair showed greater gapping compared with the native state at 30° (P = .021) and 90° (P = .039) but not at 60° of flexion (P = .059). There was no difference when testing augmented repair or repair alone first. Conclusion: UCL repair augmented with a bioinductive, biocomposite absorbable structural scaffold imparts additional biomechanical strength to UCL repair alone, without overconstraint beyond the native state. Further comparative studies are warranted. Clinical Relevance: As augmented primary UCL repair becomes more commonly performed, use of an absorbable bioinductive scaffold may allow for improved time-zero mechanical strength, and thus more rapid rehabilitation, while avoiding long-term overconstraint or stress shielding.