International Center for Orthopaedic Advancement and Division of Shoulder Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21224-2780, USA.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Mar;20(2):213-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.017. Epub 2010 Dec 10.
Our hypothesis was that the autograft-augmented direct repair of torn triceps tendons would have strength superior than that of direct repair when compared to the strength of intact distal triceps tendons.
The strength of the intact distal triceps tendon in 8 unpaired, fresh frozen cadaver specimens was measured to tendon failure by uniaxial tension in the sagittal plane. The torn triceps tendons were then repaired by direct repair (sutures through drill holes) or an autograft-augmented direct repair. Each tendon repair was biomechanically tested to failure, and load to displacement curves and the site of tendon failure were recorded. Tendon strength after each repair was compared with that of the other repair technique and with that of the intact triceps tendon. Significance was set at P < .05.
Average failure loads for intact, direct repair, and augmented repair tendons were 1741, 317, and 593 N, respectively; augmented repairs were significantly stronger than direct repairs. In the intact tendon, failure occurred at the insertion site through a tear at the bone tendon interface or through a small cortical avulsion. In the repaired tendons, all but 1 failure occurred through the suture; 1 augmented repair failed first at the tendon and then through the suture.
There is a paucity of clinical data regarding the optimal repair for distal triceps avulsion. We found that triceps repair affords less strength than the intact tendon, but augmented repair was nearly twice as strong as that of direct repair. Augmented repair may allow earlier range of motion, weightbearing, and rehabilitation, theoretically decreasing complications associated with the procedure.
Augmented triceps repair is superior to direct triceps repair for a distal triceps avulsion produced in a cadaver model.
我们的假设是,与完整的远端三头肌腱相比,自体增强直接修复撕裂的三头肌腱的强度将优于直接修复。
在 8 个未配对的新鲜冷冻尸体标本中,通过在矢状面中单轴拉伸测量完整的远端三头肌腱的强度至肌腱断裂。然后通过直接修复(缝线穿过钻孔)或自体增强直接修复来修复撕裂的三头肌腱。对每个肌腱修复进行生物力学测试至失效,并记录负载-位移曲线和肌腱失效部位。将每种修复后的肌腱强度与其他修复技术和完整的三头肌腱进行比较。设定显著性水平为 P <.05。
完整、直接修复和增强修复肌腱的平均失效负荷分别为 1741、317 和 593N;增强修复明显比直接修复强。在完整的肌腱中,失效发生在插入部位,通过骨肌腱界面的撕裂或通过小皮质撕脱。在修复的肌腱中,除 1 个外,所有肌腱均通过缝线失效;1 个增强修复首先在肌腱处失效,然后通过缝线失效。
关于远端三头肌撕脱的最佳修复方法,临床数据很少。我们发现三头肌修复的强度不如完整的肌腱,但增强修复的强度几乎是直接修复的两倍。增强修复可能允许更早地进行运动范围、负重和康复,理论上减少与该过程相关的并发症。
在尸体模型中,与直接修复相比,增强的三头肌修复更适合远端三头肌撕脱。