BACKGROUND: The contact pressure and contact area at the tendon-bone interface after the most commonly used rotator cuff repair methods have not been investigated. HYPOTHESIS: There are no significant differences among the transosseous, the single-row suture anchor, and the double-row suture anchor techniques in terms of contact pressure, contact area, and pressure patterns at the tendon-bone interface. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: After creating a full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear in 10 cadaveric shoulder specimens, we inserted pressure-sensitive film between the tendon stump and the bone, and we repaired the tear by (1) transosseous, (2) single-row suture anchor, and (3) double-row suture anchor techniques. RESULTS: The contact area of the double-row technique was 42% greater than that of the transosseous technique (P < .0001) and 60% greater than that of the single-row technique. The contact area of the transosseous technique was 31% greater than that of the single-row technique (P = .0015). The average pressures of the single-row and double-row techniques were 18% (P = .014) and 16% (P = .03) greater, respectively, than that of the transosseous technique, but there was no significant difference between the single-row and double-row techniques (P = .915). CONCLUSIONS: The double-row technique produced the greatest contact area and the second-highest contact pressure, whereas the single-row technique created the highest contact pressure and the least contact area. The transosseous technique produced the second-greatest contact area and the least contact pressure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The double-row suture anchor technique and the transosseous technique may provide a better environment for tendon healing.
BACKGROUND: The contact pressure and contact area at the tendon-bone interface after the most commonly used rotator cuff repair methods have not been investigated. HYPOTHESIS: There are no significant differences among the transosseous, the single-row suture anchor, and the double-row suture anchor techniques in terms of contact pressure, contact area, and pressure patterns at the tendon-bone interface. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: After creating a full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear in 10 cadaveric shoulder specimens, we inserted pressure-sensitive film between the tendon stump and the bone, and we repaired the tear by (1) transosseous, (2) single-row suture anchor, and (3) double-row suture anchor techniques. RESULTS: The contact area of the double-row technique was 42% greater than that of the transosseous technique (P < .0001) and 60% greater than that of the single-row technique. The contact area of the transosseous technique was 31% greater than that of the single-row technique (P = .0015). The average pressures of the single-row and double-row techniques were 18% (P = .014) and 16% (P = .03) greater, respectively, than that of the transosseous technique, but there was no significant difference between the single-row and double-row techniques (P = .915). CONCLUSIONS: The double-row technique produced the greatest contact area and the second-highest contact pressure, whereas the single-row technique created the highest contact pressure and the least contact area. The transosseous technique produced the second-greatest contact area and the least contact pressure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The double-row suture anchor technique and the transosseous technique may provide a better environment for tendon healing.
Authors: Vedran Lovric; Michael Ledger; Jerome Goldberg; Wade Harper; Nicky Bertollo; Matthew H Pelletier; Rema A Oliver; Yan Yu; William R Walsh Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Giuseppe Milano; Andrea Grasso; Donatella Zarelli; Laura Deriu; Mario Cillo; Carlo Fabbriciani Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Karimdad Otarodifard; Jeffrey Wong; Charles F Preston; James E Tibone; Thay Q Lee Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Fernanda de Marchi Bosi Porto; Marcelo Wiltemburg Alves; André Luis Lugnani de Andrade Journal: Acta Ortop Bras Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 0.513
Authors: Marc Tompkins; Keith O Monchik; Matthew J Plante; Braden C Fleming; Paul D Fadale Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Mike H Baums; G Spahn; H Steckel; A Fischer; W Schultz; H-M Klinger Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2009-03-21 Impact factor: 4.342