We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
In Vitro
Journal Article
A biomechanical comparison of 2 transosseous-equivalent double-row rotator cuff repair techniques using bioabsorbable anchors: cyclic loading and failure behavior.
Arthroscopy 2009 August
PURPOSE: A novel double-row configuration was compared with a traditional double-row configuration for rotator cuff repair.
METHODS: In 10 matched-pair sheep shoulders in vitro repair was performed with either a double-row technique with corkscrew suture anchors for the medial row and insertion anchors for the lateral row (group A) or a double-row technique with a new tape-like suture material with insertion anchors for both the medial and lateral rows (group B). Each specimen underwent cyclic loading from 10 to 150 N for 100 cycles, followed by unidirectional failure testing. Gap formation and strain within the repair area for the first and last cycles were analyzed with a video digitizing system, and stiffness and failure load were determined from the load-elongation curve.
RESULTS: The results were similar for the 2 repair types. There was no significant difference between the ultimate failure loads of the 2 techniques (421 +/- 150 N in group A and 408 +/- 66 N in group B, P = .31) or the stiffness of the 2 techniques (84 +/- 26 N/mm in group A and 99 +/- 20 N/mm in group B, P = .07). In addition, gap formation was not different between the repair types. Strain over the repair area was also not different between the repair types.
CONCLUSIONS: Both tested rotator cuff repair techniques had high failure loads, limited gap formation, and acceptable strain patterns. No significant difference was found between the novel and conventional double-row repair types.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Two double-row techniques-one with corkscrew suture anchors for the medial row and insertion anchors for the lateral row and one with insertion anchors for both the medial and lateral rows-provided excellent biomechanical profiles at time 0 for double-row repairs in a sheep model. Although the sheep model may not directly correspond to in vivo conditions, all-insertion anchor double-row constructs are worthy of further investigation.
METHODS: In 10 matched-pair sheep shoulders in vitro repair was performed with either a double-row technique with corkscrew suture anchors for the medial row and insertion anchors for the lateral row (group A) or a double-row technique with a new tape-like suture material with insertion anchors for both the medial and lateral rows (group B). Each specimen underwent cyclic loading from 10 to 150 N for 100 cycles, followed by unidirectional failure testing. Gap formation and strain within the repair area for the first and last cycles were analyzed with a video digitizing system, and stiffness and failure load were determined from the load-elongation curve.
RESULTS: The results were similar for the 2 repair types. There was no significant difference between the ultimate failure loads of the 2 techniques (421 +/- 150 N in group A and 408 +/- 66 N in group B, P = .31) or the stiffness of the 2 techniques (84 +/- 26 N/mm in group A and 99 +/- 20 N/mm in group B, P = .07). In addition, gap formation was not different between the repair types. Strain over the repair area was also not different between the repair types.
CONCLUSIONS: Both tested rotator cuff repair techniques had high failure loads, limited gap formation, and acceptable strain patterns. No significant difference was found between the novel and conventional double-row repair types.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Two double-row techniques-one with corkscrew suture anchors for the medial row and insertion anchors for the lateral row and one with insertion anchors for both the medial and lateral rows-provided excellent biomechanical profiles at time 0 for double-row repairs in a sheep model. Although the sheep model may not directly correspond to in vivo conditions, all-insertion anchor double-row constructs are worthy of further investigation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app