Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2009
In vitro biomechanical comparison of three different types of single- and double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: analysis of continuous bone-tendon contact pressure and surface during different simulated joint positions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grimberg Jean, Diop Amadou, Kalra Kunal, Charousset Christophe, Duranthon Louis-Denis, Maurel Nathalie
Аннотация
HYPOTHESIS: We assessed bone-tendon contact surface and pressure with a continuous and reversible measurement system comparing 3 different double- and single-row techniques of cuff repair with simulation of different joint positions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reproduced a medium supraspinatus tear in 24 human cadaveric shoulders. For the 12 right shoulders, single-row suture (SRS) and then double-row bridge suture (DRBS) were used. For the 12 left shoulders, DRBS and then double-row cross suture (DRCS) were used. Measurements were performed before, during, and after knot tying and then with different joint positions.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in contact surface with the DRBS technique compared with the SRS technique and with the DRCS technique compared with the SRS or DRBS technique. There was a significant increase in contact pressure with the DRBS technique and DRCS technique compared with the SRS technique but no difference between the DRBS technique and DRCS technique.
CONCLUSIONS: The DRCS technique seems to be superior to the DRBS and SRS techniques in terms of bone-tendon contact surface and pressure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reproduced a medium supraspinatus tear in 24 human cadaveric shoulders. For the 12 right shoulders, single-row suture (SRS) and then double-row bridge suture (DRBS) were used. For the 12 left shoulders, DRBS and then double-row cross suture (DRCS) were used. Measurements were performed before, during, and after knot tying and then with different joint positions.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in contact surface with the DRBS technique compared with the SRS technique and with the DRCS technique compared with the SRS or DRBS technique. There was a significant increase in contact pressure with the DRBS technique and DRCS technique compared with the SRS technique but no difference between the DRBS technique and DRCS technique.
CONCLUSIONS: The DRCS technique seems to be superior to the DRBS and SRS techniques in terms of bone-tendon contact surface and pressure.