Suppr超能文献

肩袖修复的失败分析:三种双排技术的比较

Failure analysis of rotator cuff repair: a comparison of three double-row techniques.

作者信息

Zheng Naiquan, Harris Howard W, Andrews James R

机构信息

Center for Biomedical Engineering Systems, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001, USA.

出版信息

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 May;90(5):1034-42. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00049.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The use of suture anchors has made arthroscopic repair of the torn rotator cuff possible. However, objective evaluations have demonstrated high failure rates. The goal of this study was to compare the modes and rates of failure of two double-row arthroscopic repair techniques and the mini-open double-row technique.

METHODS

Thirty pairs of fresh-frozen human shoulders were used in this study. The specimens were prepared to simulate a cuff defect, which was then repaired. The repairs were done with three different lateral row techniques (Mason-Allen sutures passed through transosseous tunnels, the knotless anchor method, and the corkscrew suture anchor method) with the same medial row technique (corkscrew suture anchors). Cyclic tests were conducted at 33 mm/s with a cyclic force of 10 to 180 N. Specimens were cycled to 5000 cycles or to failure as defined as formation of a 10-mm gap at the repair. Failure rates and failure modes of the suture, tendon, and bone-anchor interface were compared for the medial and lateral rows and among the three techniques.

RESULTS

Fourteen of the twenty repairs made with the transosseous technique, fifteen of the twenty repairs made with the knotless anchor technique, and ten of the twenty repairs made with the corkscrew anchor technique survived 5000 cycles. The failure rates for the medial row were not significantly different among the three repair techniques. For the lateral row, there was a significant difference (p < 0.01) in the rate of failure among individual transosseous tunnel-suture complexes (32%), knotless anchor-suture complexes (48%), and corkscrew anchor-suture complexes (75%), with a similar suture-tendon failure rate for all three techniques. The tendon and repair complexes with corkscrew suture anchors had the smallest displacement both at the first and the 5000th cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Although repairs made with the anchor techniques had higher individual failure rates, the survival rates for the anchor techniques at the 5000th cycle were similar to that for the transosseous technique during cyclic tests. Suture failure was the main failure mode for the transosseous technique, whereas failure at the anchor-bone interface was the main failure mode for the anchor techniques.

摘要

背景

缝线锚钉的应用使关节镜下修复撕裂的肩袖成为可能。然而,客观评估显示失败率很高。本研究的目的是比较两种双排关节镜修复技术和小切口双排技术的失败模式和失败率。

方法

本研究使用了30对新鲜冷冻的人体肩部标本。对标本进行处理以模拟肩袖缺损,然后进行修复。采用三种不同的外侧排技术(Mason-Allen缝线穿过骨隧道、无结锚钉法和螺旋缝线锚钉法)和相同的内侧排技术(螺旋缝线锚钉)进行修复。以33mm/s的速度进行循环测试,循环力为10至180N。将标本循环至5000次循环或直至修复处出现10mm间隙定义为失败。比较内侧排和外侧排以及三种技术之间缝线、肌腱和骨锚界面的失败率和失败模式。

结果

采用骨隧道技术的20例修复中有14例、采用无结锚钉技术的20例修复中有15例、采用螺旋缝线锚钉技术的20例修复中有10例在5000次循环后仍保持完整。三种修复技术在内侧排的失败率无显著差异。对于外侧排,单个骨隧道-缝线复合体(32%)、无结锚钉-缝线复合体(48%)和螺旋缝线锚钉-缝线复合体(75%)的失败率存在显著差异(p<0.01),三种技术的缝线-肌腱失败率相似。在第一个循环和第5000个循环时,采用螺旋缝线锚钉的肌腱和修复复合体的位移最小。

结论

尽管采用锚钉技术的修复个体失败率较高,但在循环测试中,锚钉技术在第5000个循环时的生存率与骨隧道技术相似。缝线失败是骨隧道技术的主要失败模式,而锚钉-骨界面的失败则是锚钉技术的主要失败模式。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验