Suppr超能文献

经皮肩袖修复的生物力学评估:锚钉真的重要吗?

Biomechanical evaluation of transosseous rotator cuff repair: do anchors really matter?

机构信息

Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison Street, Suite 1063, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.

出版信息

Am J Sports Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):283-90. doi: 10.1177/0363546512469092. Epub 2012 Dec 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Suture anchor fixation has become the preferred method for arthroscopic repairs of rotator cuff tears. Recently, newer arthroscopic repair techniques including transosseous-equivalent repairs with anchors or arthroscopic transosseous suture passage have been developed.

PURPOSE

To compare the initial biomechanical performance including ultimate load to failure and localized cyclic elongation between transosseous-equivalent repair with anchors (TOE), traditional transosseous repair with a curved bone tunnel (TO), and an arthroscopic transosseous repair technique utilizing a simple (AT) or X-box suture configuration (ATX).

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Twenty-eight human cadaveric shoulders were dissected to create an isolated supraspinatus tear and randomized into 1 of 4 repair groups (TOE, TO, AT, ATX). Tensile testing was conducted to simulate the anatomic position of the supraspinatus with the arm in 60° of abduction and involved an initial preload, cyclic loading, and pull to failure. Localized elongation during testing was measured using optical tracking. Data were statistically assessed using analysis of variance with a Tukey post hoc test for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

The TOE repair demonstrated a significantly higher mean ± SD failure load (558.4 ± 122.9 N) compared with the TO (325.3 ± 79.9 N), AT (291.7 ± 57.9 N), and ATX (388.5 ± 92.6 N) repairs (P < .05). There was also a significantly larger amount of first-cycle excursion in the AT group (8.19 ± 1.85 mm) compared with the TOE group (5.10 ± 0.89 mm). There was no significant difference between repair groups in stiffness during maximum load to failure or in normalized cyclic elongation. Failure modes were as follows: TOE, tendon (n = 4) and bone (n = 3); TO, suture (n = 6) and bone (n = 1); AT, tendon (n = 2) and bone (n = 3) and suture (n = 1); ATX, tendon (n = 7).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that anchorless repair techniques using transosseous sutures result in significantly lower failure loads than a repair model utilizing anchors in a TOE construct.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Suture anchor repair appears to offer superior biomechanical properties to transosseous repairs regardless of tunnel or suture configuration.

摘要

背景

缝合锚钉固定已成为关节镜下修复肩袖撕裂的首选方法。最近,开发了新的关节镜下修复技术,包括带锚钉的经骨隧道等同修复或关节镜下经骨缝线通道。

目的

比较经骨隧道等同修复(TOE)、传统经骨隧道修复(TO)和利用简单(AT)或 X 盒缝线配置(ATX)的关节镜下经骨修复技术之间的初始生物力学性能,包括极限失效载荷和局部循环伸长率。

研究设计

对照实验室研究。

方法

对 28 具人尸肩关节进行解剖,以建立孤立性冈上肌腱撕裂,并随机分为 4 个修复组(TOE、TO、AT、ATX)之一。拉伸测试模拟肩外展 60°时冈上肌的解剖位置,包括初始预加载、循环加载和失效拉断。使用光学跟踪测量测试过程中的局部伸长。使用方差分析评估数据,并使用 Tukey 事后检验进行多重比较。

结果

TOE 修复的平均失效载荷(558.4 ± 122.9 N)显著高于 TO(325.3 ± 79.9 N)、AT(291.7 ± 57.9 N)和 ATX(388.5 ± 92.6 N)修复(P <.05)。AT 组的第一循环位移量也明显大于 TOE 组(8.19 ± 1.85 mm)。在最大失效载荷下的刚度或归一化循环伸长率方面,各组间无显著差异。失败模式如下:TOE,肌腱(n = 4)和骨(n = 3);TO,缝线(n = 6)和骨(n = 1);AT,肌腱(n = 2)和骨(n = 3)和缝线(n = 1);ATX,肌腱(n = 7)。

结论

本研究表明,与 TOE 结构中使用锚钉的修复模型相比,使用经骨缝线的无锚钉修复技术会导致失效载荷显著降低。

临床相关性

无论隧道或缝线配置如何,缝合锚钉修复似乎都能提供更好的生物力学性能。

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