Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Western Reserve Hospital, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Orthopedic Clinic Association, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Banner University Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2018 May;34(5):1414-1420. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.12.024. Epub 2018 Feb 15.
To compare the biomechanical properties of single-row repair with triple-loaded (TL) anchor repair versus a knotless rip stop (KRS) repair in a rotator cuff repair model.
Rotator cuff tears were created in 8 cadaveric matched-pair specimens and repaired with a TL anchor or KRS construct. In the TL construct, anchors were placed in the greater tuberosity and then all suture limbs were passed through the rotator cuff as simple sutures and tied. In the KRS construct, a 2-mm suture tape was passed through the tendon in an inverted mattress fashion, and a free suture was passed medial to the suture tape to create a rip-stop. Then, the suture tape and free suture were secured with knotless anchors. Displacement was observed with video tracking after cyclic loading, and specimens were loaded to failure.
The mean load to failure was 438 ± 59 N in TL anchor repairs compared with 457 ± 110 N in KRS repairs (P = .582). The mean displacement with cyclic loading was 3.8 ± 1.6 mm in TL anchor repairs versus 4.3 ± 1.8 mm in the KRS group (P = .297). Mode of failure was consistent in both groups, with 6 of 8 failures in the TL anchor group and 7 of 8 failures in KRS group occurring from anchor pullout.
There is no statistical difference in load to failure and cyclic loading between TL anchor and KRS single-row repair techniques.
KRS repair technique may be an alternative method of repairing full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears with a single-row construct.
比较单排修复与三负荷（TL）锚修复与无结止滑（KRS）修复在肩袖修复模型中的生物力学性能。
在 8 对尸体匹配标本中创建肩袖撕裂，并使用 TL 锚或 KRS 结构进行修复。在 TL 结构中，将锚置于大结节上，然后所有缝线通过肩袖作为简单缝线并系紧。在 KRS 结构中，将 2mm 缝线带以倒 V 形穿过肌腱，并将一根自由缝线穿过缝线带内侧以形成止滑。然后，用无结锚固定缝线带和自由缝线。在循环加载后用视频跟踪观察位移，并将标本加载至失效。
TL 锚修复的平均失效载荷为 438 ± 59N，而 KRS 修复的平均失效载荷为 457 ± 110N（P =.582）。TL 锚修复的循环加载平均位移为 3.8 ± 1.6mm，而 KRS 组的平均位移为 4.3 ± 1.8mm（P =.297）。两种修复方式的失效模式一致，TL 锚组中有 6 个失效，而 KRS 组中有 7 个失效均为锚钉拔出。
TL 锚和 KRS 单排修复技术在失效载荷和循环加载方面没有统计学差异。
KRS 修复技术可能是一种替代方法，可使用单排结构修复全层冈上肌腱撕裂。
Zotero 插件