• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Knotted 或 Knotless 技术在修复肩胛下肌腱全层撕裂的上部更好?尸体研究。

Are Knotted or Knotless Techniques Better for Reconstruction of Full-Thickness Tears of the Superior Portion of the Subscapularis Tendon? A Study in Cadavers.

机构信息

Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, RKU, Ulm, Germany.

Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Centre for Trauma Research Ulm, Ulm University Medical Centre, Ulm, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Mar 1;480(3):523-535. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001970.

DOI:10.1097/CORR.0000000000001970
PMID:34494983
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8846353/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Knotted and knotless single-anchor reconstruction techniques are frequently performed to reconstruct full-thickness tears of the upper portion of subscapularis tendon. However, it is unclear whether one technique is superior to the other.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) When comparing knotless and knotted single-anchor reconstruction techniques in full-thickness tears of the upper subscapularis tendon, is there a difference in stiffness under cyclic load? (2) Are there differences in cyclic gapping between knotless and knotted reconstructions? (3) Are there differences in the maximal stiffness, yield load, and ultimate load to failure? (4) What are the modes of failure of knotless and knotted reconstruction techniques?

METHODS

Eight matched pairs of human cadaveric shoulders were dissected, and a full-thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon (Grade 3 according to the Fox and Romeo classification) was created. The cadavers all were male specimens, with a median (range) age of 69 years (61 to 75). Before biomechanical evaluation, the specimens were randomized into two equal reconstruction groups: knotless single anchor and knotted single anchor. All surgical procedures were performed by a single orthopaedic surgeon who subspecializes in sports orthopedics and shoulder surgery. With a customized set up that was integrated in a dynamic material testing machine, the humeri were consecutively loaded from 10 N to 60 N, from 10 N to 100 N, and from 10 N to 180 N for 50 cycles. Furthermore, the gapping behavior of the tear was analyzed using a video tracking system. Finally, the stiffness, gapping, maximal stiffness, yield loads, and maximum failure loads of both reconstruction groups were statistically analyzed. Failure was defined as retearing of the reconstructed gap threshold due to rupture of the tendon and/or failure of the knots or anchors. After biomechanical testing, bone quality was measured at the footprint of the subscapularis using microCT in all specimens. Bone quality was equal between both groups. To detect a minimum 0.15-mm difference in gap formation between the two repair techniques (with a 5% level of significance; α = 0.05), eight matched pairs (n = 16 in total) were calculated as necessary to achieve a power of at least 90%.

RESULTS

The first study question can be answered as follows: for stiffness under cyclic load, there were no differences with the numbers available between the knotted and knotless groups at load stages of 10 N to 60 N (32.7 ± 3.5 N/mm versus 34.2 ± 5.6 N/mm, mean difference 1.5 N/mm [95% CI -6.43 to 3.33]; p = 0.55), 10 N to 100 N (45.0 ± 4.8 N/mm versus 45.2 ± 6.0 N/mm, mean difference 0.2 N/mm [95% CI -5.74 to 6.04]; p = 0.95), and 10 N to 180 N (58.2 ± 10.6 N/mm versus 55.2 ± 4.7 N/mm, mean difference 3 N/mm [95% CI -5.84 to 11.79]; p = 0.48). In relation to the second research question, the following results emerged: For cyclic gapping, there were no differences between the knotted and knotless groups at any load levels. The present study was able to show the following with regard to the third research question: Between knotted and knotless repairs, there were no differences in maximal load stiffness (45.3 ± 8.6 N/mm versus 43.5 ± 10.2 N/mm, mean difference 1.8 [95% CI -11.78 to 8.23]; p = 0.71), yield load (425.1 ± 251.4 N versus 379.0 ± 169.4 N, mean difference 46.1 [95% CI -276.02 to 183.72]; p = 0.67), and failure load (521.1 ± 266.2 N versus 475.8 ± 183.3 N, mean difference 45.3 [95% CI -290.42 to 199.79]; p = 0.69). Regarding the fourth question concerning the failure modes, in the knotted repairs, the anchor tore from the bone in 2 of 8, the suture tore from the tendon in 6 of 8, and no suture slipped from the eyelet; in the knotless repairs, the anchor tore from the bone in 2 of 8, the suture tore from the tendon in 3 of 8, and the threads slipped from the eyelet in 3 of 8.

CONCLUSION

With the numbers available, we found no differences between single-anchor knotless and knotted reconstruction techniques used to repair full-thickness tears of the upper portion of subscapularis tendon.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The reconstruction techniques we analyzed showed no differences in terms of their primary stability and biomechanical properties at the time of initial repair and with the numbers available. In view of these experimental results, it would be useful to conduct a clinical study in the future to verify the translationality of the experimental data of the present study.

摘要

背景

在修复肩胛下肌腱上部分全层撕裂时,常采用带线锚钉缝合和无结锚钉缝合技术。然而,目前尚不清楚这两种技术中哪一种更具优势。

问题/目的:(1)比较全层撕裂的肩胛下肌腱上部分带线锚钉缝合和无结锚钉缝合技术,在循环负荷下,其刚度是否存在差异?(2)两种重建方式的循环张开度是否存在差异?(3)最大刚度、屈服载荷和极限失效载荷是否存在差异?(4)带线锚钉和无结锚钉重建技术的失效模式是什么?

方法

解剖 8 对匹配的人尸体肩关节,创建肩胛下肌腱全层撕裂(根据 Fox 和 Romeo 分类为 3 级)。所有标本均为男性,中位(范围)年龄为 69 岁(61 岁至 75 岁)。在进行生物力学评估之前,将标本随机分为两组:带线锚钉单锚和无结锚钉单锚。所有手术均由一位专注于运动医学和肩部手术的骨科专家完成。使用定制的集成在动态材料试验机中的设置,连续将肱骨从 10 N 加载到 60 N、从 10 N 加载到 100 N、从 10 N 加载到 180 N,进行 50 个循环。此外,使用视频跟踪系统分析撕裂的张开行为。最后,对两种重建组的刚度、张开度、最大刚度、屈服载荷和最大失效载荷进行统计学分析。定义失效为由于肌腱撕裂和/或锚钉或缝线的失效导致重建间隙再次撕裂。在生物力学测试后,使用微 CT 在所有标本的肩胛下肌止点处测量骨质量。两组的骨质量相等。为了检测两种修复技术之间(显著性水平为 5%;α=0.05)最小 0.15mm 的差异,需要计算 8 对(共 16 个)匹配的样本,以获得至少 90%的功效。

结果

第一个研究问题的答案如下:在循环负荷下,在 10 N 至 60 N(32.7 ± 3.5 N/mm 与 34.2 ± 5.6 N/mm,平均差异 1.5 N/mm[95%置信区间-6.43 至 3.33];p=0.55)、10 N 至 100 N(45.0 ± 4.8 N/mm 与 45.2 ± 6.0 N/mm,平均差异 0.2 N/mm[95%置信区间-5.74 至 6.04];p=0.95)和 10 N 至 180 N(58.2 ± 10.6 N/mm 与 55.2 ± 4.7 N/mm,平均差异 3 N/mm[95%置信区间-5.84 至 11.79];p=0.48)时,在刚度方面,带线锚钉和无结锚钉组之间没有差异。对于第二个研究问题,结果如下:在循环张开度方面,在任何负荷水平下,带线锚钉和无结锚钉组之间均无差异。本研究还表明,在第三个研究问题中:在带线锚钉和无结锚钉修复之间,最大负载刚度(45.3 ± 8.6 N/mm 与 43.5 ± 10.2 N/mm,平均差异 1.8[95%置信区间-11.78 至 8.23];p=0.71)、屈服载荷(425.1 ± 251.4 N 与 379.0 ± 169.4 N,平均差异 46.1[95%置信区间-276.02 至 183.72];p=0.67)和失效载荷(521.1 ± 266.2 N 与 475.8 ± 183.3 N,平均差异 45.3[95%置信区间-290.42 至 199.79];p=0.69)方面没有差异。对于第四个关于失效模式的问题,在带线锚钉修复中,2 个标本中的锚钉从骨头上撕裂,8 个标本中的 6 个标本中的缝线从肌腱上撕裂,没有缝线从缝线眼中滑出;在无结锚钉修复中,2 个标本中的锚钉从骨头上撕裂,8 个标本中的 3 个标本中的缝线从肌腱上撕裂,3 个标本中的缝线从缝线眼中滑出。

结论

根据现有的样本量,我们发现全层撕裂的肩胛下肌腱上部分带线锚钉和无结锚钉修复技术在初始修复时以及在现有的样本量下,在主要稳定性和生物力学性能方面没有差异。鉴于这些实验结果,将来进行一项临床研究来验证本研究的实验数据的转化性将是有用的。

临床相关性

我们分析的重建技术在初始修复时和现有的样本量下,在主要稳定性和生物力学性能方面没有差异。鉴于这些实验结果,将来进行一项临床研究来验证本研究的实验数据的转化性将是有用的。

相似文献

1
Are Knotted or Knotless Techniques Better for Reconstruction of Full-Thickness Tears of the Superior Portion of the Subscapularis Tendon? A Study in Cadavers.Knotted 或 Knotless 技术在修复肩胛下肌腱全层撕裂的上部更好?尸体研究。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Mar 1;480(3):523-535. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001970.
2
Reconstruction of 25 and 50 % subscapularis tears: a single anchor with a double-mattress suture is sufficient for the reconstruction.25%和50%肩胛下肌撕裂的重建:单锚定双褥式缝合足以进行重建。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Dec;24(12):3855-3862. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3767-5. Epub 2015 Aug 30.
3
Biomechanical Evaluation of Knotless and Knotted All-Suture Anchor Repair Constructs in 4 Bankart Repair Configurations.四种 Bankart 修复构型中无结和打结全缝线锚修复结构的生物力学评估。
Arthroscopy. 2020 Jun;36(6):1523-1532. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.01.046. Epub 2020 Feb 10.
4
Arthroscopic single anchor repair techniques for upper third subscapularis tears provide sufficient biomechanical stability.关节镜下单锚修复技术治疗肩胛下肌上三分之一撕裂可提供足够的生物力学稳定性。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Jun;30(6):2105-2112. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06808-0. Epub 2021 Nov 25.
5
Knotted Transosseous-Equivalent Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair Shows Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared With a Knotless Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.结节等同经骨技术修复肩袖与无结技术比较的生物力学特性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Arthroscopy. 2022 Mar;38(3):1019-1027. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.09.017. Epub 2021 Oct 2.
6
Biomechanical comparison of a knotless suture anchor with standard suture anchor in the repair of type II SLAP tears.无结缝线锚钉与标准缝线锚钉在Ⅱ型SLAP损伤修复中的生物力学比较
Arthroscopy. 2009 Apr;25(4):348-54. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.10.019. Epub 2008 Dec 18.
7
Knotted versus knotless suture bridge repair of the achilles tendon insertion: a biomechanical study.跟腱止点的带结与无结缝线桥修复:一项生物力学研究。
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Nov;42(11):2727-33. doi: 10.1177/0363546514549004. Epub 2014 Sep 15.
8
Remplissage Using Interconnected Knotless Anchors: Superior Biomechanical Properties to a Knotted Technique?使用互联无结锚定填充:优于打结技术的生物力学性能?
Arthroscopy. 2018 Nov;34(11):2954-2959. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.06.030. Epub 2018 Oct 3.
9
Biomechanical analysis of arthroscopically assisted latissimus dorsi transfer fixation for irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears-Knotless versus knotted anchors.关节镜辅助下背阔肌转移固定修复不可修复的肩袖后上部分撕裂的生物力学分析——无结锚钉与有结锚钉的比较
J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct;39(10):2234-2242. doi: 10.1002/jor.24963. Epub 2020 Dec 25.
10
Biomechanical analysis of a knotless transtendon interimplant mattress repair for partial-thickness articular-sided rotator cuff tears.关节侧部分厚度旋转袖撕裂的无结腱内植入物床垫修复的生物力学分析。
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Dec;37(12):2427-34. doi: 10.1177/0363546509340227.

引用本文的文献

1
Top Ten Pearls for a Successful Subscapularis Repair.肩胛下肌修复成功的十大要点
Arthrosc Tech. 2025 Apr 28;14(7):103562. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2025.103562. eCollection 2025 Jul.
2
Biomechanical evaluation of the H-Loop technique and single-row knotted technique for repairing upper third subscapularis tendon injuries.用于修复肩胛下肌上三分之一肌腱损伤的H形环技术和单排打结技术的生物力学评估
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025 Jun 5;26(1):558. doi: 10.1186/s12891-025-08743-4.
3
Three-Point Contact Repair Technique for Partial Subscapularis Tears Using U-Stitch and Cow Hitch Knot Loaded on a Single Knotless Anchor: Simple, Reliable and Quick Method.使用单根无结锚钉上的U形缝合和双套结的肩胛下肌部分撕裂三点接触修复技术:简单、可靠且快速的方法
Arthrosc Tech. 2024 Oct 22;14(2):103239. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2024.103239. eCollection 2025 Feb.
4
Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review.肩胛下肌撕裂单排与双排修复背后有限的生物力学证据:一项系统评价
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022 Mar 15;4(3):e1193-e1201. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.01.009. eCollection 2022 Jun.