Institut pour la Recherche en Chirurgie Orthopédique et Sportive, Paris, France and Clinique des Lilas, Les Lilas, France.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2):236-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.09.006. Epub 2009 Dec 7.
We assessed bone-tendon contact surface and pressure with a continuous and reversible measurement system comparing 3 different double- and single-row techniques of cuff repair with simulation of different joint positions.
We reproduced a medium supraspinatus tear in 24 human cadaveric shoulders. For the 12 right shoulders, single-row suture (SRS) and then double-row bridge suture (DRBS) were used. For the 12 left shoulders, DRBS and then double-row cross suture (DRCS) were used. Measurements were performed before, during, and after knot tying and then with different joint positions.
There was a significant increase in contact surface with the DRBS technique compared with the SRS technique and with the DRCS technique compared with the SRS or DRBS technique. There was a significant increase in contact pressure with the DRBS technique and DRCS technique compared with the SRS technique but no difference between the DRBS technique and DRCS technique.
The DRCS technique seems to be superior to the DRBS and SRS techniques in terms of bone-tendon contact surface and pressure.
我们使用连续且可重复的测量系统评估了不同关节位置下模拟的三种不同双排和单排肩袖修复技术的骨-腱接触表面和压力。
我们在 24 个人体尸体肩关节中复制了中等大小的冈上肌腱撕裂。对于 12 个右侧肩关节，使用单排缝线（SRS），然后是双排桥接缝线（DRBS）。对于 12 个左侧肩关节，使用 DRBS，然后是双排交叉缝线（DRCS）。在打结前、打结时和打结后以及不同关节位置下进行测量。
与 SRS 技术相比，DRBS 技术的接触表面显著增加，与 SRS 或 DRBS 技术相比，DRCS 技术的接触表面也显著增加。与 SRS 技术相比，DRBS 技术和 DRCS 技术的接触压力显著增加，但 DRBS 技术和 DRCS 技术之间没有差异。
在骨-腱接触表面和压力方面，DRCS 技术似乎优于 DRBS 和 SRS 技术。
Zotero 插件