PURPOSE: To compare pressurized footprint contact and interface pressure between the biceps-labrum complex and the superior glenoid rim after SLAP repair using 3 different techniques. METHODS: Twenty-four fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were divided into 3 groups. SLAP lesions were repaired by (1) 2 single-loaded anchors in a simple suture configuration (group T), (2) a double-loaded anchor in a simple suture configuration in a V shape (group V), or (3) a double-loaded anchor by use of a hybrid simple and mattress suture configuration (group H). Pressure-sensitive film quantified pressurized contact areas and interface pressures between the biceps-labrum complex and the glenoid rim after SLAP repair. RESULTS: Groups T and V showed significantly larger contact areas than group H (P < .0001). However, there was no significant difference between groups T and V. Despite a substantial contact area around the biceps-labrum complex in group T, there was a lack of sufficient contact area just below the biceps anchor. Group V showed a uniform contact area around the entire biceps-labrum complex, but in group H the contact area was concentrated only around the posterior superior labrum, where the simple suture was used. CONCLUSIONS: The methods using 2 single-loaded suture anchors and using 1 double-loaded suture anchor with a simple suture configuration showed significantly larger pressurized contact areas than the method using 1 double-loaded suture anchor with both a simple and mattress suture configuration. The interface pressure was not significantly different among groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although there have been several kinds of repair techniques and biomechanical studies for the type II SLAP lesion, there has been no study about footprint restoration on the superior glenoid rim. This study analyzed and compared the footprint contact restoration after type II SLAP repair among 3 different techniques.
PURPOSE: To compare pressurized footprint contact and interface pressure between the biceps-labrum complex and the superior glenoid rim after SLAP repair using 3 different techniques. METHODS: Twenty-four fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were divided into 3 groups. SLAP lesions were repaired by (1) 2 single-loaded anchors in a simple suture configuration (group T), (2) a double-loaded anchor in a simple suture configuration in a V shape (group V), or (3) a double-loaded anchor by use of a hybrid simple and mattress suture configuration (group H). Pressure-sensitive film quantified pressurized contact areas and interface pressures between the biceps-labrum complex and the glenoid rim after SLAP repair. RESULTS: Groups T and V showed significantly larger contact areas than group H (P < .0001). However, there was no significant difference between groups T and V. Despite a substantial contact area around the biceps-labrum complex in group T, there was a lack of sufficient contact area just below the biceps anchor. Group V showed a uniform contact area around the entire biceps-labrum complex, but in group H the contact area was concentrated only around the posterior superior labrum, where the simple suture was used. CONCLUSIONS: The methods using 2 single-loaded suture anchors and using 1 double-loaded suture anchor with a simple suture configuration showed significantly larger pressurized contact areas than the method using 1 double-loaded suture anchor with both a simple and mattress suture configuration. The interface pressure was not significantly different among groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although there have been several kinds of repair techniques and biomechanical studies for the type II SLAP lesion, there has been no study about footprint restoration on the superior glenoid rim. This study analyzed and compared the footprint contact restoration after type II SLAP repair among 3 different techniques.