BACKGROUND: After rotator cuff repair, the shoulder is immobilized in various abduction positions. However, there is no consensus on the proper abduction angle. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of shoulder abduction angle on the biomechanical properties of the repaired rotator cuff tendons among 3 types of double-row techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Thirty-two fresh-frozen porcine shoulders were used. A simulated rotator cuff tear was repaired by 1 of 3 double-row techniques: conventional double-row repair, transosseous-equivalent repair, and a combination of conventional double-row and bridging sutures (compression double-row repair). Each specimen underwent cyclic testing followed by tensile testing to failure at a simulated shoulder abduction angle of 0° or 40° on a material testing machine. Gap formation and failure loads were measured. RESULTS: Gap formation in conventional double-row repair at 0° (1.2 ± 0.5 mm) was significantly greater than that at 40° (0.5 ± 0.3mm, P = .01). The yield and ultimate failure loads for conventional double-row repair at 40° were significantly larger than those at 0° (P < .01), whereas those for transosseous-equivalent repair (P < .01) and compression double-row repair (P < .0001) at 0° were significantly larger than those at 40°. The failure load for compression double-row repair was the greatest among the 3 double-row techniques at both 0° and 40° of abduction. CONCLUSION: Bridging sutures have a greater effect on the biomechanical properties of the repaired rotator cuff tendon at a low abduction angle, and the conventional double-row technique has a greater effect at a high abduction angle. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proper abduction position after rotator cuff repair differs between conventional double-row repair and transosseous-equivalent repair. The authors recommend the use of the combined technique of conventional double-row and bridging sutures to obtain better biomechanical properties at both low and high abduction angles.
BACKGROUND: After rotator cuff repair, the shoulder is immobilized in various abduction positions. However, there is no consensus on the proper abduction angle. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of shoulder abduction angle on the biomechanical properties of the repaired rotator cuff tendons among 3 types of double-row techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Thirty-two fresh-frozen porcine shoulders were used. A simulated rotator cuff tear was repaired by 1 of 3 double-row techniques: conventional double-row repair, transosseous-equivalent repair, and a combination of conventional double-row and bridging sutures (compression double-row repair). Each specimen underwent cyclic testing followed by tensile testing to failure at a simulated shoulder abduction angle of 0° or 40° on a material testing machine. Gap formation and failure loads were measured. RESULTS: Gap formation in conventional double-row repair at 0° (1.2 ± 0.5 mm) was significantly greater than that at 40° (0.5 ± 0.3mm, P = .01). The yield and ultimate failure loads for conventional double-row repair at 40° were significantly larger than those at 0° (P < .01), whereas those for transosseous-equivalent repair (P < .01) and compression double-row repair (P < .0001) at 0° were significantly larger than those at 40°. The failure load for compression double-row repair was the greatest among the 3 double-row techniques at both 0° and 40° of abduction. CONCLUSION: Bridging sutures have a greater effect on the biomechanical properties of the repaired rotator cuff tendon at a low abduction angle, and the conventional double-row technique has a greater effect at a high abduction angle. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proper abduction position after rotator cuff repair differs between conventional double-row repair and transosseous-equivalent repair. The authors recommend the use of the combined technique of conventional double-row and bridging sutures to obtain better biomechanical properties at both low and high abduction angles.
Authors: Felix Porschke; Marc Schnetzke; Christoph Luecke; Christel Weiss; Stefan Studier-Fischer; Paul Alfred Gruetzner; Thorsten Guehring Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 2.928
Authors: Zhanwen Wang; Hong Li; Zeling Long; Subin Lin; Andrew R Thoreson; Steven L Moran; Anne Gingery; Peter C Amadio; Scott P Steinmann; Chunfeng Zhao Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: Zhanwen Wang; Zeling Long; Hong Li; Hongbin Lu; Anne Gingery; Peter C Amadio; Steven L Moran; Chunfeng Zhao Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-03
Authors: Felix Porschke; Christoph Luecke; Thorsten Guehring; Christel Weiss; Stefan Studier-Fischer; Paul Alfred Gruetzner; Marc Schnetzke Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 3.934