Yamakado Kotaro
Department of Orthopaedics, Fukui General Hospital, Fukui, Japan.
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2021 Jun 8;11(2). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.20.00004. eCollection 2021 Apr-Jun.
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair emerged in the early 1990s, and the single-row repair technique (i.e., suture anchor[s] set at the center or laterally on the greater tuberosity) has shown promising outcomes; however, the healing rate of the repaired cuff is suboptimal. Although small to medium-sized rotator cuff tears have shown better clinical outcomes and structural healing than larger tears, healing failure still occurs.There are several factors that affect rotator cuff healing. The initial stiffness and strength of the repair, gap formation resistance, footprint coverage at the end of surgery, vascularity of the cuff, and mechanical stress on the repaired cuff are important factors. To improve tendon-to-bone healing, 2 repair techniques have been developed: the suture bridge technique and the medially based single-row technique. The suture bridge technique involves placing anchors in a 2-row fashion, with medial-row sutures from the medial anchors bridged over the footprint with lateral-row knotless anchors. The single-bridge technique has shown biomechanical superiority in terms of ultimate strength, stiffness, and gap formation resistance; however, these outcomes are achieved at the cost of relatively high tension at the suture-cuff junction, as well as interference with vascularity at the medial mattress sutures if medial mattress sutures are tied.Alternatively, the medially based single-row technique was proposed as a modification of the laterally based (traditional) single-row technique. This technique is combined with the creation of bone marrow vents (microfracture technique) lateral to the inserted anchor in the footprint to promote soft-tissue regeneration (called "neotendon") over the exposed footprint. The theoretical advantages of this technique include lower tension on the repaired cuff; better screw purchase beneath the subchondral bone, which avoids weaker cancellous bone on the peripheral area of the greater tuberosity; and avoidance or reduction of lateral shift of the muscle-tendon junction. However, these outcomes are achieved with relatively weaker initial fixation strength and by exposing the uncovered greater tuberosity footprint lateral to the repaired tendon edge.Both procedures provide equivalent outcomes as measured by functional and pain scores. At present, there is no decisive superiority in treating small to medium-sized supraspinatus tears.
Arthroscopic subacromial decompression is performed in both techniques.For suture bridge fixation, the suture anchor is placed at the articular margin of the humeral head as the medial row, and both limbs of each suture are passed through the tendon approximately 5 mm lateral to the muscle-tendon junction of the rotator cuff in a mattress fashion. After the medial-row knots are tied, the suture limbs are brought into 2 lateral push-in anchors.For the medially based single-row repair, suture anchors are placed lateral to the articular margin. Each suture limb is passed through the tendon approximately 1 cm medial to the torn edge of the cuff. All sutures are tied with 7 half-hitches, avoiding a sliding knot.
Open or mini-open rotator cuff repair.Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair suture bridge technique without knot-tying.Arthroscopic transosseous (i.e., anchorless) rotator cuff repair.
The suture bridge technique has achieved better mechanical properties and footprint coverage, and the medially based single-row technique has achieved lower tension on the repaired construct with neotendon regeneration. These techniques are the opposite concept as coverage-oriented and tension-oriented techniques, respectively. To our knowledge, there is presently no study showing that either of these 2 techniques is better than the other. With that said, the author prefers the medially based single-row technique in cases with degenerative tendon tissue, especially among elderly patients with relatively short tendon substance and with preoperative stiffness because lowering the tension on the repaired construct would be more important than coverage of the greater tuberosity.
Published data have not shown significant differences in the clinical outcomes and cuff integrity between these 2 techniques, with no decisive superiority when treating small to medium-sized supraspinatus tears. The choice between these techniques is solely the decision of the surgeon; however, medial cuff failure has been reported only when using the suture bridge technique, and incomplete healing was more frequent among medially based single-row techniques. One should consider the risks of medial cuff failure and incomplete healing of the repaired cuff before choosing the repair technique for medium-sized supraspinatus tears.
The proposed risk factors for medial cuff failure in the suture bridge technique include:○ A mattress suture configuration placed at the muscle-tendon junction○ Aggressive rehabilitation○ Use of a large-diameter suture passer○ Application of a sliding knot○ High-stress concentration around the medial knotsThe proposed risk factors for incomplete healing in the medially based single-row techniqueare:○ Lower mechanical properties (initial stiffness and strength, gap formation resistance) in the repaired site○ Lower number of sutures.
关节镜下肩袖修复术始于20世纪90年代初,单排修复技术(即缝线锚钉置于大结节中心或外侧)已显示出良好的效果;然而,修复后的肩袖愈合率仍不尽人意。尽管中小型肩袖撕裂比大型撕裂显示出更好的临床效果和结构愈合,但愈合失败仍会发生。有几个因素会影响肩袖愈合。修复的初始刚度和强度、抗间隙形成能力、手术结束时的足迹覆盖、肩袖的血管分布以及修复后肩袖上的机械应力都是重要因素。为了改善肌腱与骨的愈合,已开发出两种修复技术:缝线桥技术和内侧单排技术。缝线桥技术涉及以两排方式放置锚钉,内侧锚钉的内侧排缝线用外侧排无结锚钉跨过足迹进行桥接。单桥技术在极限强度、刚度和抗间隙形成方面显示出生物力学优势;然而,这些结果是以缝线与肩袖交界处相对较高的张力为代价实现的,如果系紧内侧褥式缝线,还会干扰内侧褥式缝线处的血管分布。
或者,内侧单排技术是作为外侧(传统)单排技术的一种改良而提出的。该技术结合了在足迹中插入锚钉外侧创建骨髓通气孔(微骨折技术),以促进暴露足迹上的软组织再生(称为“新腱”)。该技术的理论优势包括修复后肩袖上的张力较低;在软骨下骨下方有更好的螺钉固定,避免了大结节周边区域较弱的松质骨;以及避免或减少肌腱 - 肌肉交界处的外侧移位。然而,这些结果是通过相对较弱的初始固定强度以及暴露修复肌腱边缘外侧未覆盖的大结节足迹来实现的。
通过功能和疼痛评分衡量,这两种手术方法的结果相当。目前,在治疗中小型冈上肌撕裂方面没有决定性的优势。
两种技术均需进行关节镜下肩峰下减压。
对于缝线桥固定,将缝线锚钉置于肱骨头的关节边缘作为内侧排,每根缝线的两端以褥式方式穿过肩袖肌腱 - 肌肉交界处外侧约5mm处的肌腱。在内侧排结系紧后,将缝线两端引入两个外侧推入式锚钉。
对于内侧单排修复,将缝线锚钉置于关节边缘外侧。每根缝线两端穿过肩袖撕裂边缘内侧约1cm处的肌腱。所有缝线用7个半结系紧,避免使用滑动结。
开放或小切口肩袖修复术。
关节镜下肩袖修复缝线桥技术(不打结)。
关节镜下经骨(即无锚钉)肩袖修复术。
缝线桥技术具有更好的力学性能和足迹覆盖,内侧单排技术通过新腱再生在修复结构上实现了较低的张力。这些技术分别是与覆盖导向和张力导向技术相反的概念。据我们所知,目前没有研究表明这两种技术中的任何一种优于另一种。话虽如此,作者在处理退变肌腱组织的病例中,尤其是在肌腱实质相对较短且术前僵硬的老年患者中,更喜欢内侧单排技术,因为降低修复结构上的张力比覆盖大结节更重要。
已发表的数据未显示这两种技术在临床结果和肩袖完整性方面有显著差异,在治疗中小型冈上肌撕裂时没有决定性的优势。这些技术之间的选择完全由外科医生决定;然而,仅在使用缝线桥技术时报告过内侧肩袖失败,在内侧单排技术中不完全愈合更为常见。在为中小型冈上肌撕裂选择修复技术之前,应考虑内侧肩袖失败和修复后肩袖不完全愈合的风险。
缝线桥技术中内侧肩袖失败的潜在危险因素包括:
置于肌腱 - 肌肉交界处的褥式缝线构型
积极的康复训练
使用大直径缝线穿引器
使用滑动结
内侧结周围的高应力集中
修复部位较低的力学性能(初始刚度和强度、抗间隙形成能力)
缝线数量较少