Suppr超能文献

采用三负载缝合锚进行改良单排肩袖重建与缝合桥接双排修复的可比较生物力学结果。

Comparable biomechanical results for a modified single-row rotator cuff reconstruction using triple-loaded suture anchors versus a suture-bridging double-row repair.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany.

出版信息

Arthroscopy. 2012 Feb;28(2):178-87. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.08.298. Epub 2011 Nov 23.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical properties and footprint coverage of a single-row (SR) repair using a modified suture configuration versus a double-row (DR) suture-bridge repair in small to medium and medium to large rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

We created 25- and 35-mm artificial defects in the rotator cuff of 24 human cadaveric shoulders. The reconstructions were performed as either an SR repair with triple-loaded suture anchors (2 to 3 anchors) and a modified suture configuration or a modified suture-bridge DR repair (4 to 6 anchors). Reconstructions were cyclically loaded from 10 to 60 N. The load was increased stepwise up to 100, 180, and 250 N. Cyclic displacement and load to failure were determined. Furthermore, footprint widths were quantified.

RESULTS

In the 25-mm rupture, ultimate load to failure was 533 ± 107 N for the SR repair and 681 ± 250 N for the DR technique (P ≥ .21). In the 35-mm tear, ultimate load to failure was 792 ± 122 N for the SR reconstruction and 891 ± 174 N for the DR reconstruction (P ≥ .28). There were no statistically significant differences for both tested rupture sizes. Cyclic displacement showed no significant differences between the tested configurations at 60 N (P = .563), 100 N (P = .171), 180 N (P = .211), and 250 N (P = .478) for the 25-mm tear. For the 35-mm tear, cyclic displacement showed significantly lower gap formation for the SR reconstruction at 180 N (P = .037) and 250 N (P = .020). No significant differences were found at 60 N (P = .296) and 100 N (P = .077). A significantly greater footprint width (P = .028) was seen for the DR repair (16.2 mm) compared with the SR repair (13.8 mm). However, both reconstructions were able to achieve complete footprint coverage compared with the initial footprint.

CONCLUSIONS

The tested SR repair using a modified suture configuration was similar in load to failure and cyclic displacement to the DR suture-bridge technique independent of the tested initial sizes of the rupture. The tested DR repair consistently restored a larger footprint than the SR method. However, both constructs achieved complete footprint coverage.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

SR repairs with modified suture configurations might combine the biomechanical advantages and increased footprint coverage that are described for DR repairs without increasing the overall costs of the reconstruction.

摘要

目的

比较使用改良缝线构型的单排(SR)修复与双排(DR)缝线桥接修复在小至中大和中至大肩袖撕裂中的生物力学特性和覆盖面积。

方法

我们在 24 个人体尸体肩关节的肩袖上创建了 25 和 35mm 的人工缺损。重建分别采用三负载缝线锚(2 至 3 个锚)和改良缝线构型的 SR 修复或改良缝线桥接 DR 修复(4 至 6 个锚)进行。重建从 10 至 60N 进行循环加载。逐步增加至 100、180 和 250N 增加负载。确定循环位移和失效负载。此外,量化了足迹宽度。

结果

在 25mm 破裂中,SR 修复的失效负载为 533 ± 107N,DR 技术为 681 ± 250N(P≥.21)。在 35mm 撕裂中,SR 重建的失效负载为 792 ± 122N,DR 重建的失效负载为 891 ± 174N(P≥.28)。对于两种测试的破裂尺寸,均无统计学上显著差异。在 25mm 撕裂中,在 60N(P=.563)、100N(P=.171)、180N(P=.211)和 250N(P=.478)时,测试构型的循环位移无显著差异。对于 35mm 撕裂,在 180N(P=.037)和 250N(P=.020)时,SR 重建的间隙形成明显较低,循环位移较低。在 60N(P=.296)和 100N(P=.077)时,无显著差异。DR 修复的足迹宽度明显大于 SR 修复(P=.028),为 16.2mm,而 SR 修复为 13.8mm。然而,两种重建都能够与初始足迹相比,实现完全的足迹覆盖。

结论

使用改良缝线构型的测试 SR 修复在失效负载和循环位移方面与 DR 缝线桥接技术相似,而与测试的初始破裂尺寸无关。测试的 DR 修复始终恢复了比 SR 方法更大的足迹。然而,两种结构都实现了完全的足迹覆盖。

临床相关性

采用改良缝线构型的 SR 修复可能结合了 DR 修复所描述的生物力学优势和增加的足迹覆盖范围,而不会增加重建的总成本。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验