Sileo Michael J, Lee Steven J, Kremenic Ian J, Orishimo Karl, Ben-Avi Simon, McHugh Malachy, Nicholas Stephen J
Department of Orthopaedics, Nicholas Institute of Sports Medicine and Athletic Trauma, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York 10021, USA.
Arthroscopy. 2009 Apr;25(4):348-54. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.10.019. Epub 2008 Dec 18.
To compare the biomechanical strength of knotless suture anchors and standard suture anchors in the repair of type II SLAP tears.
Five pairs of cadaveric shoulders (10 shoulders) were dissected free of soft tissue except for the glenoid labrum and long head of the biceps tendon. Type II SLAP tears were created and repaired with 1 of 2 anchors: the Mitek Lupine suture anchor or the Mitek Bioknotless suture anchor (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA). All specimens were preloaded to 10 N, and loaded for 25 cycles in 10 N increments to a maximum of 200 N. If specimens were still intact after 200 N, they were loaded to ultimate failure. The load at which 2 mm of gapping occurred, load to ultimate failure, mode of failure, and the number of cycles to failure were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Load to 2-mm gapping was lower (P = .042) for knotless anchors (70 N) versus knotted anchors (104 N), with similar differences for ultimate failure (74 N v 132 N; P = .043), cycles to 2-mm gapping (133 v 219 cycles; P = .042), and cycles to failure (143 v 297; P = .043). Eight of 10 specimens failed at the soft tissue interface (4 knotless, 4 knotted) and 2 failed by anchor pullout (1 knotted, 1 knotless).
The results of this study suggest that repair of a type II SLAP with a Mitek knotted suture anchor and mattress suture configuration through the biceps anchor is stronger than repair with a Mitek knotless suture anchor. The most likely method of repair failure was at the suture-soft tissue interface regardless of the type of anchor used. The application of a suture anchor that requires arthroscopic knot tying may be preferable to a knotless anchor for the surgical repair of type II SLAP tears.
Repair of type II SLAP tears with knotless suture anchors may allow for the avoidance of arthroscopic knot tying but is weaker than repair with standard suture anchors.
比较无结缝线锚钉和标准缝线锚钉在Ⅱ型SLAP损伤修复中的生物力学强度。
解剖5对尸体肩部标本(共10个肩部),保留肩胛盂唇和肱二头肌长头腱,去除其他软组织。制造Ⅱ型SLAP损伤,并用以下两种锚钉之一进行修复:Mitek Lupine缝线锚钉或Mitek Bioknotless缝线锚钉(DePuy Mitek公司,美国马萨诸塞州雷纳姆)。所有标本先预加载至10 N,然后以10 N的增量加载25个循环,最大加载至200 N。如果标本在200 N加载后仍保持完整,则继续加载直至最终破坏。使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较出现2 mm间隙时的载荷、最终破坏载荷、破坏模式以及破坏循环次数。
无结锚钉出现2 mm间隙时的载荷(70 N)低于有结锚钉(104 N)(P = 0.042),最终破坏载荷(74 N对132 N;P = 0.043)、达到2 mm间隙的循环次数(133次对219次;P = 0.042)以及破坏循环次数(143次对297次;P = 0.043)也有类似差异。10个标本中有8个在软组织界面处破坏(4个无结,4个有结),2个因锚钉拔出而破坏(1个有结,1个无结)。
本研究结果表明,通过肱二头肌锚钉使用Mitek有结缝线锚钉和褥式缝合结构修复Ⅱ型SLAP损伤比使用Mitek无结缝线锚钉修复更强。无论使用何种类型的锚钉,最可能的修复失败方式是在缝线 - 软组织界面处。对于Ⅱ型SLAP损伤的手术修复,需要关节镜下打结的缝线锚钉可能比无结锚钉更可取。
使用无结缝线锚钉修复Ⅱ型SLAP损伤可避免关节镜下打结,但比使用标准缝线锚钉修复的强度弱。