Steven W Meier1, Jeffrey D Meier. 1. The Center for Progressive Sports Medicine and Orthopedic Surgery, 1310 W. Stewart Dr, Suite 508, Orange, CA 07030, USA. SMeierMD@aol.com <SMeierMD@aol.com>
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the initial mechanical strength of 3 rotator cuff repair techniques. METHODS: A total of 30 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were prepared, and full-thickness supraspinatus tears were created. Specimens were randomized and placed into 3 groups: (1) transosseous suture technique (group I: TOS, n = 10, 6F/4M), (2) single-row suture anchor fixation (group II: SRSA, n = 10, 6F/4M), and (3) double-row suture anchor fixation (group III: DRSA, n = 10, 6F/4M). Each specimen underwent cyclic load testing from 5 N to 180 N at a rate of 33 mm/sec. The test was stopped when complete failure (repair site gap of 10 mm) or a total of 5,000 cycles was attained. RESULTS: Group I (TOS) failed at an average of 75.3 +/- 22.49 cycles, and group II (SRSA) at an average of 798.3 +/- 73.28 cycles; group III (DRSA) had no failures because all samples were stopped when 5,000 cycles had been completed. Fixation strength of the DRSA technique proved to be significantly greater than that of SRSA (P < .001), and both suture anchor groups were significantly stronger than the TOS group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Suture anchor repairs were significantly stronger than transosseous repairs. Furthermore, double-row suture anchor fixation was significantly stronger than was single-row repair. Therefore, double-row fixation may be superior to other techniques in that it provides a substantially stronger repair that could lead to improved biologic healing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A high incidence of incomplete healing occurs in rotator cuff repair. Use of double-row fixation may help the clinician to address some deficiencies in current methods by increasing the strength of the repair, potentially leading to improved healing rates.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the initial mechanical strength of 3 rotator cuff repair techniques. METHODS: A total of 30 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were prepared, and full-thickness supraspinatus tears were created. Specimens were randomized and placed into 3 groups: (1) transosseous suture technique (group I: TOS, n = 10, 6F/4M), (2) single-row suture anchor fixation (group II: SRSA, n = 10, 6F/4M), and (3) double-row suture anchor fixation (group III: DRSA, n = 10, 6F/4M). Each specimen underwent cyclic load testing from 5 N to 180 N at a rate of 33 mm/sec. The test was stopped when complete failure (repair site gap of 10 mm) or a total of 5,000 cycles was attained. RESULTS: Group I (TOS) failed at an average of 75.3 +/- 22.49 cycles, and group II (SRSA) at an average of 798.3 +/- 73.28 cycles; group III (DRSA) had no failures because all samples were stopped when 5,000 cycles had been completed. Fixation strength of the DRSA technique proved to be significantly greater than that of SRSA (P < .001), and both suture anchor groups were significantly stronger than the TOS group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Suture anchor repairs were significantly stronger than transosseous repairs. Furthermore, double-row suture anchor fixation was significantly stronger than was single-row repair. Therefore, double-row fixation may be superior to other techniques in that it provides a substantially stronger repair that could lead to improved biologic healing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A high incidence of incomplete healing occurs in rotator cuff repair. Use of double-row fixation may help the clinician to address some deficiencies in current methods by increasing the strength of the repair, potentially leading to improved healing rates.