Cummins Craig A, Murrell George A C
Lake Cook Orthopaedic Associates, Barrington, IL 60010, USA.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Mar-Apr;12(2):128-33. doi: 10.1067/mse.2003.21.
Rotator cuff tears are a common cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction. After surgical repair, there is a significant re-tear rate (25%-90%). The aim of this study was to determine the primary mode of mechanical failure for rotator cuffs repaired with suture anchors at the time of revision rotator cuff repair. We prospectively followed 342 consecutive torn rotator cuffs, repaired by a single surgeon using suture anchors and a mattress-suturing configuration. Of those shoulders, 21 (6%) subsequently underwent a revision rotator cuff repair by the original surgeon, and 1 underwent a second revision repair. Intraoperative findings, including the mode of failure, were systematically recorded at revision surgery and compared with the findings at the primary repair. In addition, 81 primary rotator cuff repairs had a radiographic and fluoroscopic evaluation at a mean of 37 weeks after repair to assess for any loosening or migration of the anchors. At revision rotator cuff repair, the predominant mode of failure was tendon pulling through sutures (19/22 shoulders) (P <.001). Two recurrent tears occurred in a new location adjacent to the previous repair, and one anchor was found loose in the supraspinatus tendon. The mean size of the rotator cuff tear was larger at the revision surgery (P =.043), the tendon quality ranked poorer (P =.013), and the tendon mobility decreased (P =.002), as compared with the index procedure. The radiographs and fluoroscopic examination showed that all 335 anchors in 81 patients were in bone. Rotator cuff repairs with suture anchors that underwent revision surgery failed mechanically by three mechanisms, the most common of which was tendon pulling through sutures. This suggests that the weak link in rotator cuff repairs with suture anchors and horizontal mattress sutures, as determined at revision surgery, is the tendon-suture interface.
肩袖撕裂是肩部疼痛和功能障碍的常见原因。手术修复后,再撕裂率很高(25%-90%)。本研究的目的是确定在翻修肩袖修复时使用缝线锚钉修复的肩袖的主要机械失效模式。我们前瞻性地随访了342例连续的肩袖撕裂患者,均由同一位外科医生使用缝线锚钉和褥式缝合配置进行修复。在这些肩部中,21例(6%)随后由原外科医生进行了翻修肩袖修复,1例进行了二次翻修修复。术中发现,包括失效模式,在翻修手术时进行了系统记录,并与初次修复时的发现进行了比较。此外,81例初次肩袖修复患者在修复后平均37周进行了影像学和荧光透视评估,以评估锚钉是否有松动或移位。在翻修肩袖修复时,主要的失效模式是肌腱从缝线中拉出(19/22例肩部)(P<.001)。在先前修复部位相邻的新位置出现了2例复发性撕裂,在冈上肌腱中发现1枚锚钉松动。与初次手术相比,翻修手术时肩袖撕裂的平均大小更大(P=.043),肌腱质量较差(P=.013),肌腱活动度降低(P=.002)。影像学和荧光透视检查显示,81例患者的335枚锚钉均位于骨内。使用缝线锚钉进行的肩袖修复在翻修手术时出现机械性失效有三种机制,最常见的是肌腱从缝线中拉出。这表明,在翻修手术中确定的,使用缝线锚钉和水平褥式缝合进行肩袖修复的薄弱环节是肌腱-缝线界面。