Meier Steven W, Meier Jeffrey D
The Center for Progressive Sports Medicine and Orthopedic Surgery, 1310 W. Stewart Dr, Suite 508, Orange, CA 07030, USA.
Arthroscopy. 2006 Nov;22(11):1168-73. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.07.004.
The purpose of this study was to compare the initial mechanical strength of 3 rotator cuff repair techniques.
A total of 30 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were prepared, and full-thickness supraspinatus tears were created. Specimens were randomized and placed into 3 groups: (1) transosseous suture technique (group I: TOS, n = 10, 6F/4M), (2) single-row suture anchor fixation (group II: SRSA, n = 10, 6F/4M), and (3) double-row suture anchor fixation (group III: DRSA, n = 10, 6F/4M). Each specimen underwent cyclic load testing from 5 N to 180 N at a rate of 33 mm/sec. The test was stopped when complete failure (repair site gap of 10 mm) or a total of 5,000 cycles was attained.
Group I (TOS) failed at an average of 75.3 +/- 22.49 cycles, and group II (SRSA) at an average of 798.3 +/- 73.28 cycles; group III (DRSA) had no failures because all samples were stopped when 5,000 cycles had been completed. Fixation strength of the DRSA technique proved to be significantly greater than that of SRSA (P < .001), and both suture anchor groups were significantly stronger than the TOS group (P < .001).
Suture anchor repairs were significantly stronger than transosseous repairs. Furthermore, double-row suture anchor fixation was significantly stronger than was single-row repair. Therefore, double-row fixation may be superior to other techniques in that it provides a substantially stronger repair that could lead to improved biologic healing.
A high incidence of incomplete healing occurs in rotator cuff repair. Use of double-row fixation may help the clinician to address some deficiencies in current methods by increasing the strength of the repair, potentially leading to improved healing rates.
本研究旨在比较3种肩袖修复技术的初始力学强度。
准备30个新鲜冷冻尸体肩部标本,并制造全层冈上肌撕裂。将标本随机分组,分为3组:(1)经骨缝合技术(第I组:TOS,n = 10,6名女性/4名男性),(2)单排缝合锚钉固定(第II组:SRSA,n = 10,6名女性/4名男性),以及(3)双排缝合锚钉固定(第III组:DRSA,n = 10,6名女性/4名男性)。每个标本以33毫米/秒的速度进行从5牛至180牛的循环载荷测试。当出现完全失效(修复部位间隙达10毫米)或达到总共5000次循环时停止测试。
第I组(TOS)平均在75.3±22.49次循环时失效,第II组(SRSA)平均在798.3±73.28次循环时失效;第III组(DRSA)没有出现失效情况,因为所有样本在完成5000次循环时均停止测试。DRSA技术的固定强度被证明显著大于SRSA技术(P <.001),并且两个缝合锚钉组均显著强于TOS组(P <.001)。
缝合锚钉修复明显强于经骨修复。此外,双排缝合锚钉固定显著强于单排修复。因此,双排固定可能优于其他技术,因为它能提供实质上更强的修复,可能导致更好的生物学愈合。
肩袖修复中不完全愈合的发生率较高。使用双排固定可能有助于临床医生通过增加修复强度来解决当前方法中的一些不足,从而可能提高愈合率。