We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
A laboratory comparison of a new arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair to a double row transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair using suture anchors.
BACKGROUND: Because current instrumentation makes it possible to perform an arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair, we performed a biomechanical comparison of a double-row transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair using suture anchors to an arthroscopic, transosseous rotator cuff repair to determine if they provided similar fixation stability.
METHODS: Six pairs of shoulders were used. One of each pair had a standard double row, transosseous equivalent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using a suture-bridge technique with suture anchors, and the other had an arthroscopic transosseous repair using an Xbox technique. The repairs were cycled at 150 N for 10,000 cycles with movement of the lateral cuff edge recorded and then tested to failure.
RESULTS: The total cuff edge displacement at 10,000 cycles in the anchor group (transosseous equivalent repair) was 7.9 mm and 6.3 mm for the bone tunnel group (transosseous repair); these were not significantly different (p=0.19). The anchor group failed at an average of 309 N and the bone tunnel group at an average of 339 N (p=0.22).
DISCUSSION: Biomechanical testing suggests that arthroscopic, transosseous rotator cuff repair using a Xbox suture configuration is similar in strength and stability to an arthroscopic transosseous equivalent suture-bridge repair. Both techniques demonstrated difficulty in maintaining the lateral position of the tendon.
METHODS: Six pairs of shoulders were used. One of each pair had a standard double row, transosseous equivalent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using a suture-bridge technique with suture anchors, and the other had an arthroscopic transosseous repair using an Xbox technique. The repairs were cycled at 150 N for 10,000 cycles with movement of the lateral cuff edge recorded and then tested to failure.
RESULTS: The total cuff edge displacement at 10,000 cycles in the anchor group (transosseous equivalent repair) was 7.9 mm and 6.3 mm for the bone tunnel group (transosseous repair); these were not significantly different (p=0.19). The anchor group failed at an average of 309 N and the bone tunnel group at an average of 339 N (p=0.22).
DISCUSSION: Biomechanical testing suggests that arthroscopic, transosseous rotator cuff repair using a Xbox suture configuration is similar in strength and stability to an arthroscopic transosseous equivalent suture-bridge repair. Both techniques demonstrated difficulty in maintaining the lateral position of the tendon.
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