Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Arthroscopy. 2013 Aug;29(8):1380-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.05.013.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the loop security of arthroscopic sliding knots when tension is only applied to the post strand and not the loop strand.
Six different locking sliding knots (Weston, Nicky, Roeder, SMC, San Diego, and Dines) were included. Loop securities were evaluated in 2 ways: with a conventional method (equal tension applied to the suture loop) and with a worst-case scenario (WCS) method (only the post strand of the suture loop was tensioned). Differences between test methods were evaluated for significance. To help assess the applicability of each test method, loop-security testing in a cadaveric shoulder was performed with 1 type of knot (SMC).
Loop securities with the conventional method versus the WCS method were as follows: 10.74 ± 4.20 N versus 6.90 ± 3.90 N for Weston, 21.25 ± 14.74 N versus 8.73 ± 3.35 N for Nicky, 26.14 ± 15.57 N versus 7.95 ± 4.23 N for Roeder, 42.67 ± 22.96 N versus 8.67 ± 4.33 N for SMC, 52.99 ± 21.36 N versus 18.25 ± 10.58 N for San Diego, and 89.27 ± 27.96 N versus 12.48 ± 3.40 N for Dines (P < .05 for each knot). All knots failed at significantly lower loads when the suture loop was not evenly tensioned. Cadaveric testing (SMC) resulted in a loop security of 5.53 ± 6.06 N, which was similar to the WCS setting.
The locking mechanism of the sliding knots is maintained when the suture loop is evenly tensioned at both post and non-post strands. When tension is not applied to the non-post strand side, the knots slide more easily and fail at lower loads than previously reported.
When surgeons tie locking sliding knots in single-row rotator cuff repair, they should be aware that the knots could fail at much lower loads than previously reported.
本研究旨在评估仅在缝线后线而不在缝线环线上施加张力时关节镜下滑动结的环安全性。
纳入了六种不同的锁定滑动结(Weston、Nicky、Roeder、SMC、San Diego 和 Dines)。通过两种方法评估环安全性:常规方法(缝线环的张力相等)和最坏情况(WCS)方法(仅缝线环的后线被拉紧)。评估测试方法之间的差异是否有统计学意义。为了帮助评估每种测试方法的适用性,对一种结(SMC)进行了尸体肩部的环安全性测试。
常规方法与 WCS 方法的环安全性如下:Weston 分别为 10.74 ± 4.20 N 与 6.90 ± 3.90 N,Nicky 分别为 21.25 ± 14.74 N 与 8.73 ± 3.35 N,Roeder 分别为 26.14 ± 15.57 N 与 7.95 ± 4.23 N,SMC 分别为 42.67 ± 22.96 N 与 8.67 ± 4.33 N,San Diego 分别为 52.99 ± 21.36 N 与 18.25 ± 10.58 N,Dines 分别为 89.27 ± 27.96 N 与 12.48 ± 3.40 N(每个结均 P <.05)。当缝线环未均匀拉紧时,所有结的负载均显著降低。尸体测试(SMC)的环安全性为 5.53 ± 6.06 N,与 WCS 设定相似。
当缝线后线和非后线均匀受力时,滑动结的锁定机制得以维持。当非后线一侧未施加张力时,结更容易滑动,并且负载低于先前报道的结更容易失效。
当外科医生在单排肩袖修复中系锁定滑动结时,他们应该意识到结可能会在比先前报道的低得多的负载下失效。