Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju Christian Hospital, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea.
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jul;39(7):1500-6. doi: 10.1177/0363546511399863. Epub 2011 Mar 30.
Despite the attention that has been paid to restoration of the capsulolabral complex anatomic insertion onto the glenoid, studies comparing the pressurized contact area and mean interface pressure at the anatomic insertion site between a single-row repair and a double-row labral repair have been uncommon.
The purpose of our study was to compare the mean interface pressure and pressurized contact area at the anatomic insertion site of the capsulolabral complex between a single-row repair and a double-row repair technique.
Controlled laboratory study.
Thirty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (mean age, 61 ± 8 years; range, 48-71 years) were used for this study. Two types of repair were performed on each specimen: (1) a single-row repair and (2) a double-row repair. Using pressure-sensitive films, we examined the interface contact area and contact pressure.
The mean interface pressure was greater for the double-row repair technique (0.29 ± 0.04 MPa) when compared with the single-row repair technique (0.21 ± 0.03 MPa) (P = .003). The mean pressurized contact area was also significantly greater for the double-row repair technique (211.8 ± 18.6 mm(2), 78.4% footprint) compared with the single-row repair technique (106.4 ± 16.8 mm(2), 39.4% footprint) (P = .001).
The double-row repair has significantly greater mean interface pressure and pressurized contact area at the insertion site of the capsulolabral complex than the single-row repair.
The double-row repair may be advantageous compared with the single-row repair in restoring the native footprint area of the capsulolabral complex.
尽管人们已经关注到修复关节囊盂唇复合体解剖附着在关节盂上,但比较单排修复与双排盂唇修复技术在解剖附着点的受压接触面积和平均界面压力的研究却很少见。
本研究旨在比较单排修复与双排盂唇修复技术在关节囊盂唇复合体解剖附着点的平均界面压力和受压接触面积。
对照实验室研究。
本研究使用了 30 个新鲜冷冻的尸体肩关节(平均年龄 61 ± 8 岁;范围 48-71 岁)。对每个标本进行了两种修复:(1)单排修复,(2)双排修复。使用压力敏感膜,我们检查了界面接触面积和接触压力。
双排修复技术的平均界面压力(0.29 ± 0.04 MPa)大于单排修复技术(0.21 ± 0.03 MPa)(P =.003)。双排修复技术的平均受压接触面积也显著大于单排修复技术(211.8 ± 18.6 mm²,78.4%的足迹)(P =.001)。
双排修复在关节囊盂唇复合体的附着点处具有明显更大的平均界面压力和受压接触面积,优于单排修复。
与单排修复相比,双排修复在恢复关节囊盂唇复合体的固有足迹面积方面可能具有优势。