Doo-Sup Kim1, Yeo-Seung Yoon, Hoi-Jeong Chung. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju Christian Hospital, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the attention that has been paid to restoration of the capsulolabral complex anatomic insertion onto the glenoid, studies comparing the pressurized contact area and mean interface pressure at the anatomic insertion site between a single-row repair and a double-row labral repair have been uncommon. PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to compare the mean interface pressure and pressurized contact area at the anatomic insertion site of the capsulolabral complex between a single-row repair and a double-row repair technique. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Thirty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (mean age, 61 ± 8 years; range, 48-71 years) were used for this study. Two types of repair were performed on each specimen: (1) a single-row repair and (2) a double-row repair. Using pressure-sensitive films, we examined the interface contact area and contact pressure. RESULTS: The mean interface pressure was greater for the double-row repair technique (0.29 ± 0.04 MPa) when compared with the single-row repair technique (0.21 ± 0.03 MPa) (P = .003). The mean pressurized contact area was also significantly greater for the double-row repair technique (211.8 ± 18.6 mm(2), 78.4% footprint) compared with the single-row repair technique (106.4 ± 16.8 mm(2), 39.4% footprint) (P = .001). CONCLUSION: The double-row repair has significantly greater mean interface pressure and pressurized contact area at the insertion site of the capsulolabral complex than the single-row repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The double-row repair may be advantageous compared with the single-row repair in restoring the native footprint area of the capsulolabral complex.
BACKGROUND: Despite the attention that has been paid to restoration of the capsulolabral complex anatomic insertion onto the glenoid, studies comparing the pressurized contact area and mean interface pressure at the anatomic insertion site between a single-row repair and a double-row labral repair have been uncommon. PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to compare the mean interface pressure and pressurized contact area at the anatomic insertion site of the capsulolabral complex between a single-row repair and a double-row repair technique. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Thirty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (mean age, 61 ± 8 years; range, 48-71 years) were used for this study. Two types of repair were performed on each specimen: (1) a single-row repair and (2) a double-row repair. Using pressure-sensitive films, we examined the interface contact area and contact pressure. RESULTS: The mean interface pressure was greater for the double-row repair technique (0.29 ± 0.04 MPa) when compared with the single-row repair technique (0.21 ± 0.03 MPa) (P = .003). The mean pressurized contact area was also significantly greater for the double-row repair technique (211.8 ± 18.6 mm(2), 78.4% footprint) compared with the single-row repair technique (106.4 ± 16.8 mm(2), 39.4% footprint) (P = .001). CONCLUSION: The double-row repair has significantly greater mean interface pressure and pressurized contact area at the insertion site of the capsulolabral complex than the single-row repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The double-row repair may be advantageous compared with the single-row repair in restoring the native footprint area of the capsulolabral complex.