We have located links that may give you full text access.
Single- Versus Double-Row Repair of Hip Abductor Tears: A Biomechanical Matched Cadaver Study.
Arthroscopy 2019 Februrary 5
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the percentage of gluteus medius and minimus tendon footprint restoration that can be achieved with fixation using single-row repair versus double-row repair and (2) to evaluate the yield load of a repair of the gluteus medius and minimus tendon using single-row versus double-row repair techniques.
METHODS: Twelve human fresh-frozen cadaveric hip specimens (6 matched pairs, 4 female, mean age 47.5 ± 14.5 years) were tested. Specimens were excluded if they had any prior hip surgery or injury, if any abnormality of the tendon was noted on dissection, or if they had a body mass index <20 or >35 or a T-score <2.0 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. Matched pairs were randomized to receive either double-row repair with 2 standard suture anchors and 2 knotless anchor devices or a single-row repair with suture anchors only. The percentage of the footprint area covered after repair was determined using a computer-assisted digitization algorithm. With a mechanical testing system, each repaired specimen was tested for mechanical strength first with cyclic loading and then load to failure testing.
RESULTS: Footprint coverage of the lateral facet was significantly greater for double-row repair (mean 76.6%) compared with single-row repair (mean 50.3%) (P = .03). There was no significant difference between single- and double-row repair for posterior-superior or anterior facet coverage. Mechanical testing showed a higher mean yield load for double-row anchor repair (197.6 ± 61.7 N vs 163.5 ± 35.4 N for single-row repair), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .15). The predominant mode of failure was suture pullout through the musculotendinous unit (9/12 specimens: 5 double-row and 4 single-row).
CONCLUSIONS: For hip abductor tears, double-row suture repair yields improved footprint coverage compared with single-row repair. Although it did not reach statistical significance, there was a higher mean yield load in the double-row group.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Double-row suture fixation technique for hip abductor tears maximizes strength and footprint coverage of the repair.
METHODS: Twelve human fresh-frozen cadaveric hip specimens (6 matched pairs, 4 female, mean age 47.5 ± 14.5 years) were tested. Specimens were excluded if they had any prior hip surgery or injury, if any abnormality of the tendon was noted on dissection, or if they had a body mass index <20 or >35 or a T-score <2.0 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. Matched pairs were randomized to receive either double-row repair with 2 standard suture anchors and 2 knotless anchor devices or a single-row repair with suture anchors only. The percentage of the footprint area covered after repair was determined using a computer-assisted digitization algorithm. With a mechanical testing system, each repaired specimen was tested for mechanical strength first with cyclic loading and then load to failure testing.
RESULTS: Footprint coverage of the lateral facet was significantly greater for double-row repair (mean 76.6%) compared with single-row repair (mean 50.3%) (P = .03). There was no significant difference between single- and double-row repair for posterior-superior or anterior facet coverage. Mechanical testing showed a higher mean yield load for double-row anchor repair (197.6 ± 61.7 N vs 163.5 ± 35.4 N for single-row repair), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .15). The predominant mode of failure was suture pullout through the musculotendinous unit (9/12 specimens: 5 double-row and 4 single-row).
CONCLUSIONS: For hip abductor tears, double-row suture repair yields improved footprint coverage compared with single-row repair. Although it did not reach statistical significance, there was a higher mean yield load in the double-row group.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Double-row suture fixation technique for hip abductor tears maximizes strength and footprint coverage of the repair.
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