MedElevator
Войти в исследования The American journal of sports medicine · 2009
A biomechanical comparison of transosseous-suture anchor and suture bridge rotator cuff repairs in cadavers.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Bisson Leslie J, Manohar Leslie M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several biomechanical studies comparing open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair methods have shown inferior performance of arthroscopic repairs. Suture anchor-augmented transosseous repairs and suture bridge repairs have shown superior biomechanical performance when compared with other methods, but these 2 repair methods have not been directly compared.
HYPOTHESIS: There will be no difference in the biomechanical performance of the transosseous-suture anchor and suture bridge techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Eight paired cadaveric shoulder specimens (16 specimens) had creation followed by repair of a complete tear of the supraspinatus, with the first member of each pair undergoing repair by a transosseous-suture anchor technique and the second member undergoing repair by the suture bridge technique. Specimens were then cycled from 10 to 180 N for 200 cycles, followed by testing to failure at 33 mm/s. Elongation was measured during cyclic testing, and failure load and stiffness were obtained during load-to-failure testing. Failure method was recorded.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between transosseous-suture anchor repairs and suture bridge repairs for elongation (4.0 +/- 1.60 mm vs 3.5 +/- 1.1 mm, P = .31), failure load (408 +/- 93 N vs 419 +/- 62 N, P = .70), or stiffness (58 +/- 10 N/mm vs 58 +/- 14 N/mm, P = .94). The most common mode of failure with each method was suture cutting through tendon.
CONCLUSION: The suture bridge repair exhibited similar biomechanical performance during cyclic and load-to-failure testing as a transosseous-suture anchor repair, which historically has been performed in open or mini-open fashion.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs can be performed that are as strong as open or mini-open repairs.
HYPOTHESIS: There will be no difference in the biomechanical performance of the transosseous-suture anchor and suture bridge techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Eight paired cadaveric shoulder specimens (16 specimens) had creation followed by repair of a complete tear of the supraspinatus, with the first member of each pair undergoing repair by a transosseous-suture anchor technique and the second member undergoing repair by the suture bridge technique. Specimens were then cycled from 10 to 180 N for 200 cycles, followed by testing to failure at 33 mm/s. Elongation was measured during cyclic testing, and failure load and stiffness were obtained during load-to-failure testing. Failure method was recorded.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between transosseous-suture anchor repairs and suture bridge repairs for elongation (4.0 +/- 1.60 mm vs 3.5 +/- 1.1 mm, P = .31), failure load (408 +/- 93 N vs 419 +/- 62 N, P = .70), or stiffness (58 +/- 10 N/mm vs 58 +/- 14 N/mm, P = .94). The most common mode of failure with each method was suture cutting through tendon.
CONCLUSION: The suture bridge repair exhibited similar biomechanical performance during cyclic and load-to-failure testing as a transosseous-suture anchor repair, which historically has been performed in open or mini-open fashion.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs can be performed that are as strong as open or mini-open repairs.