PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical properties and footprint coverage of a single-row (SR) repair using a modified suture configuration versus a double-row (DR) suture-bridge repair in small to medium and medium to large rotator cuff tears. METHODS: We created 25- and 35-mm artificial defects in the rotator cuff of 24 human cadaveric shoulders. The reconstructions were performed as either an SR repair with triple-loaded suture anchors (2 to 3 anchors) and a modified suture configuration or a modified suture-bridge DR repair (4 to 6 anchors). Reconstructions were cyclically loaded from 10 to 60 N. The load was increased stepwise up to 100, 180, and 250 N. Cyclic displacement and load to failure were determined. Furthermore, footprint widths were quantified. RESULTS: In the 25-mm rupture, ultimate load to failure was 533 ± 107 N for the SR repair and 681 ± 250 N for the DR technique (P ≥ .21). In the 35-mm tear, ultimate load to failure was 792 ± 122 N for the SR reconstruction and 891 ± 174 N for the DR reconstruction (P ≥ .28). There were no statistically significant differences for both tested rupture sizes. Cyclic displacement showed no significant differences between the tested configurations at 60 N (P = .563), 100 N (P = .171), 180 N (P = .211), and 250 N (P = .478) for the 25-mm tear. For the 35-mm tear, cyclic displacement showed significantly lower gap formation for the SR reconstruction at 180 N (P = .037) and 250 N (P = .020). No significant differences were found at 60 N (P = .296) and 100 N (P = .077). A significantly greater footprint width (P = .028) was seen for the DR repair (16.2 mm) compared with the SR repair (13.8 mm). However, both reconstructions were able to achieve complete footprint coverage compared with the initial footprint. CONCLUSIONS: The tested SR repair using a modified suture configuration was similar in load to failure and cyclic displacement to the DR suture-bridge technique independent of the tested initial sizes of the rupture. The tested DR repair consistently restored a larger footprint than the SR method. However, both constructs achieved complete footprint coverage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SR repairs with modified suture configurations might combine the biomechanical advantages and increased footprint coverage that are described for DR repairs without increasing the overall costs of the reconstruction.
PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical properties and footprint coverage of a single-row (SR) repair using a modified suture configuration versus a double-row (DR) suture-bridge repair in small to medium and medium to large rotator cuff tears. METHODS: We created 25- and 35-mm artificial defects in the rotator cuff of 24 human cadaveric shoulders. The reconstructions were performed as either an SR repair with triple-loaded suture anchors (2 to 3 anchors) and a modified suture configuration or a modified suture-bridge DR repair (4 to 6 anchors). Reconstructions were cyclically loaded from 10 to 60 N. The load was increased stepwise up to 100, 180, and 250 N. Cyclic displacement and load to failure were determined. Furthermore, footprint widths were quantified. RESULTS: In the 25-mm rupture, ultimate load to failure was 533 ± 107 N for the SR repair and 681 ± 250 N for the DR technique (P ≥ .21). In the 35-mm tear, ultimate load to failure was 792 ± 122 N for the SR reconstruction and 891 ± 174 N for the DR reconstruction (P ≥ .28). There were no statistically significant differences for both tested rupture sizes. Cyclic displacement showed no significant differences between the tested configurations at 60 N (P = .563), 100 N (P = .171), 180 N (P = .211), and 250 N (P = .478) for the 25-mm tear. For the 35-mm tear, cyclic displacement showed significantly lower gap formation for the SR reconstruction at 180 N (P = .037) and 250 N (P = .020). No significant differences were found at 60 N (P = .296) and 100 N (P = .077). A significantly greater footprint width (P = .028) was seen for the DR repair (16.2 mm) compared with the SR repair (13.8 mm). However, both reconstructions were able to achieve complete footprint coverage compared with the initial footprint. CONCLUSIONS: The tested SR repair using a modified suture configuration was similar in load to failure and cyclic displacement to the DR suture-bridge technique independent of the tested initial sizes of the rupture. The tested DR repair consistently restored a larger footprint than the SR method. However, both constructs achieved complete footprint coverage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SR repairs with modified suture configurations might combine the biomechanical advantages and increased footprint coverage that are described for DR repairs without increasing the overall costs of the reconstruction.
Authors: Olaf Lorbach; Mike H Baums; Tanja Kostuj; Stephan Pauly; Markus Scheibel; Andrew Carr; Nasim Zargar; Maristella F Saccomanno; Giuseppe Milano Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Leslie Bisson; Nikola Zivaljevic; Samuel Sanders; David Pula Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Stephan Frosch; Gottfried Buchhorn; Anja Hoffmann; Peter Balcarek; Jan Philipp Schüttrumpf; Florian August; Klaus Michael Stürmer; Hans Joachim Walde; Tim Alexander Walde Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Brian D Dierckman; Jake J Ni; Ronald P Karzel; Mark H Getelman Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Lauren H Redler; Ian R Byram; Timothy J Luchetti; Ying Lai Tsui; Todd C Moen; Thomas R Gardner; Christopher S Ahmad Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2014-04-16