Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2013
Is failure of tuberosity suture repair in hemi-arthroplasty for fracture mechanical?
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.
Borowsky Keith A, Prasad Vellala Raghu, Wear Lara J, Stevenson Thomas E, Trent Neil D, Bennett Adam J, Marsden Nicholas J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Tuberosity suture repair in hemiarthroplasty for fracture carries risk of malunion giving poor results. Is failure mechanical or biochemical? We investigated the mechanical aspect with repetitive loading in cadaveric repairs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tests were carried out in line with U.K. Human Tissue Authority regulations. A 4-part fracture was created in 8 cadaver shoulders by osteotomizing the tuberosities. A standard hemiarthroplasty implant was cemented in at correct height and retroversion, and standardized repairs applied. Initial firmness of repair was confirmed by attempting to manually displace the tuberosities with a forceps in multiple planes. All pre-stress tests showed 0 mm movement. Repairs were then subjected to cyclical tension on the cuff musculature and simultaneous gleno-humeral motion for 8000 cycles. The tuberosities were reprobed with a forceps to record any movement.
RESULTS: Defining repair failure as the ability to manually displace a tuberosity more than 3 mm, every specimen failed: 100% failure (exact 95% confidence interval 65.2-100% due to sample size). Movements of at least 1 cm were commonly observed. The sutures were loose but had never snapped. Sutures were noted to dig into the tendon and cut partially through bone. Collapse of cancellous bony volume led to looseness and migration of the sutures.
CONCLUSION: Suture repair of tuberosities has mechanical weaknesses; failure may be a mechanical phenomenon.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tests were carried out in line with U.K. Human Tissue Authority regulations. A 4-part fracture was created in 8 cadaver shoulders by osteotomizing the tuberosities. A standard hemiarthroplasty implant was cemented in at correct height and retroversion, and standardized repairs applied. Initial firmness of repair was confirmed by attempting to manually displace the tuberosities with a forceps in multiple planes. All pre-stress tests showed 0 mm movement. Repairs were then subjected to cyclical tension on the cuff musculature and simultaneous gleno-humeral motion for 8000 cycles. The tuberosities were reprobed with a forceps to record any movement.
RESULTS: Defining repair failure as the ability to manually displace a tuberosity more than 3 mm, every specimen failed: 100% failure (exact 95% confidence interval 65.2-100% due to sample size). Movements of at least 1 cm were commonly observed. The sutures were loose but had never snapped. Sutures were noted to dig into the tendon and cut partially through bone. Collapse of cancellous bony volume led to looseness and migration of the sutures.
CONCLUSION: Suture repair of tuberosities has mechanical weaknesses; failure may be a mechanical phenomenon.