Suppr超能文献

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.

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

2
Reconstruction of 25 and 50 % subscapularis tears: a single anchor with a double-mattress suture is sufficient for the reconstruction.
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.
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.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Jun;30(6):2105-2112. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06808-0. Epub 2021 Nov 25.
6
Biomechanical comparison of a knotless suture anchor with standard suture anchor in the repair of type II SLAP tears.
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.
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?
Arthroscopy. 2018 Nov;34(11):2954-2959. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.06.030. Epub 2018 Oct 3.

引用本文的文献

1
Top Ten Pearls for a Successful Subscapularis Repair.
Arthrosc Tech. 2025 Apr 28;14(7):103562. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2025.103562. eCollection 2025 Jul.
4
Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022 Mar 15;4(3):e1193-e1201. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.01.009. eCollection 2022 Jun.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验