University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Sep;19(9):1582-7. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1436-x. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
Evaluate the biomechanical behavior of four variants of the transosseous-equivalent/suture bridge (TOE/SB) repair.
Four suture bridge (SB) constructs were created using 24 sheep infraspinatus tendon-humerus constructs (n = 6 per technique). The groups were (1) Knotted Standard Suture Bridge (Standard SB)--suture bridge with two medial mattress stitches, (2) Knotted Double Suture Bridge (Double SB)--four medial mattress stitches, (3) Untied Suture Bridge with Medial FT Anchors (Untied SB with FT)--two medial mattress stitches without knots, and (4) Untied Suture Bridge with PushLocks (Untied SB with Pushlocks)--two medial mattress stitches without knots. The contact area footprint was measured with an electronic pressure film prior to dynamic mechanical testing for gapping and testing to failure.
The Double SB produced the greatest contact area footprint compared to the other techniques, which did not differ. The Double SB repair with a mean failure load of 456.9N was significantly stronger than the Untied SB with Pushlocks repair at 300N (P = 0.023), the standard SB repair at 295N (P = 0.019), and lastly the Untied SB with FT repair at 284N (P = 0.011). No differences were detected between the two mattress stitch standard SB repair with knots and the knotless two mattress stitch repairs (Untied SB with FT and Untied SB with Pushlocks). Gaps developed during cyclic loading in all repairs apart from the Double SB repair.
The transosseous-equivalent/suture bridge repair with 4 stitches tied in the medial row and maximal lateral suture strand utilization (Double SB) outperformed all other repairs in terms of failure load, tendon-bone contact, and gapping characteristics. The presence of knots in the medial row did not change tendon fixation with respect to failure load, contact area or gapping characteristics.
评估四种经骨等效/缝线桥（TOE/SB）修复变体的生物力学行为。
使用 24 个绵羊冈下肌腱-肱骨构建体（每组技术 6 个）创建了 4 种缝线桥（SB）结构。这些组分别为：（1）打结标准缝线桥（标准 SB）——带有两个内侧褥式缝合的缝线桥，（2）打结双缝线桥（双 SB）——四个内侧褥式缝合，（3）无结缝线桥带内侧 FT 锚（无结 SB 带 FT）——两个无结内侧褥式缝合，（4）无结缝线桥带 PushLocks（无结 SB 带 PushLocks）——两个无结内侧褥式缝合。在进行动态力学测试以测量间隙和失效测试之前，使用电子压力膜测量接触面积足迹。
与其他技术相比，双 SB 产生的接触面积足迹最大，而其他技术则没有差异。具有平均失效负载 456.9N 的双 SB 修复明显比具有 300N 的无结 SB 带 PushLocks 修复更强（P = 0.023），比具有 295N 的标准 SB 修复更强（P = 0.019），最后比具有 284N 的无结 SB 带 FT 修复更强（P = 0.011）。在带有结节的两个褥式标准 SB 修复与无结的两个褥式修复（无结 SB 带 FT 和无结 SB 带 PushLocks）之间没有检测到差异。在除双 SB 修复外的所有修复中，在循环加载过程中都会出现间隙。
在失效负载、肌腱-骨接触和间隙特征方面，带有 4 个缝线在中间行打结并最大限度地利用外侧缝线束的经骨等效/缝线桥修复（双 SB）优于所有其他修复。内侧行中的结节的存在不会改变缝线固定的失效负载、接触面积或间隙特征。
