Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Sep;27(9):1705-1710. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.004. Epub 2018 May 11.
High-strength sutures, including #2 and tape-type, are popular when performing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Although the most common mechanism of anatomic failure of rotator cuff repair is suture pulling through tendon, the effect of sutures on the suture-tendon interface has rarely been investigated. We evaluated the effect of commercially available modern high-strength standard #2 and tape-type sutures on tendon.
Isolated sutures (FiberTape, #2 FiberWire [Arthrex Inc., Naples, FL, USA], Ultratape, and #2 Ultrabraid [Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA, USA]) and suture-tendon constructs using sheep infraspinatus tendons were evaluated using mechanical testing and imaging (microcomputed tomography) techniques.
For the 4 suture-tendon constructs evaluated, maximum and residual displacements were all less than 3 mm. Whether evaluating isolated sutures or suture-tendon constructs, tape-type sutures had smaller displacements than standard #2 sutures when products from the same company were compared. On initial suture passing and after mechanical testing, hole volume was larger in constructs with tape-type rather than standard #2 sutures comparing within the same company. Collectively, constructs with larger hole volumes after mechanical testing had stiffer sutures. The percentage difference in hole volume was larger for standard #2 than tape-type sutures: FiberWire (43%), Ultrabraid (17%), FiberTape (11%), and Ultratape (9%).
Tape-type sutures created larger final holes than standard #2 sutures from the same company. When initially passed through the tendon, tape-type sutures produced larger holes than standard #2 sutures; however, standard #2 sutures enlarged their initially smaller holes more and displaced more than tape-type sutures during cyclic loading, which suggests that tape-type sutures may be protective to suture pulling through tendon.
在进行关节镜肩袖修复时,高强度缝线,包括 #2 缝线和带线型缝线,较为常用。虽然肩袖修复的解剖学失败最常见的机制是缝线从肌腱中拉出,但缝线对缝线-肌腱界面的影响很少被研究。我们评估了市售的现代高强度标准 #2 缝线和带线型缝线对肌腱的影响。
使用机械测试和成像(微计算机断层扫描)技术,评估了单独的缝线(FiberTape、#2 FiberWire [Arthrex Inc.,那不勒斯,佛罗里达州,美国]、Ultratape 和 #2 Ultrabraid [Smith & Nephew,安多弗,马萨诸塞州,美国])和使用绵羊冈下肌腱的缝线-肌腱结构。
在所评估的 4 种缝线-肌腱结构中,最大和残余位移均小于 3mm。无论是评估单独的缝线还是缝线-肌腱结构,当比较同一家公司的产品时,带线型缝线的位移都小于标准 #2 缝线。在初始缝线穿过和机械测试后,与标准 #2 缝线相比,带线型缝线的结构中缝线孔的体积更大。在机械测试后,缝线孔体积较大的结构具有更硬的缝线。在同一家公司内,与带线型缝线相比,标准 #2 缝线的缝线孔体积百分比差异更大:FiberWire(43%)、Ultrabraid(17%)、FiberTape(11%)和 Ultratape(9%)。
与同一家公司的标准 #2 缝线相比,带线型缝线会在肌腱中产生更大的最终缝线孔。当最初穿过肌腱时,带线型缝线产生的缝线孔比标准 #2 缝线大;然而,在循环加载过程中,标准 #2 缝线会扩大其最初较小的缝线孔,并比带线型缝线更多地移位,这表明带线型缝线可能对缝线从肌腱中拉出具有保护作用。