| Literature DB >> 26728594 |
Chung Hui James Tan1, Tim Saier2,3, Constantin von Deimling4, Frank Martetschläger5, Philipp Minzlaff6,7, Matthias J Feucht8,9, Horazio Martinez10, Sepp Braun11, Andreas B Imhoff12, Rainer Burgkart13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In addition to Bankart repair engaging Hill-Sachs defects in glenohumeral instability have been treated successfully with remplissage procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare three remplissage techniques regarding (I) ability of preventing Hill-Sachs defect from engaging, (II) influence on glenohumeral rotational torque, and (III) resulting tendon coverage over the Hill-Sachs defect.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26728594 PMCID: PMC4700656 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0856-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Three arthroscopic remplissage techniques (T): T1 knot technique, T2 double-pulley technique, T3 knotless suture tape technique
Fig. 2Shoulder specimen with the robotic testing system. Legend Table 1: T1: knot technique, T2: pulley technique, T3: tape technique, I: Intact native specimens. Legend Table 2: T1: knot technique, T2: pulley technique, T3: knotless suture tape technique (T3 vs. T1/T2 p = .03; T1 vs. T2 n.s.)
External rotational glenohumeral torque [Nm] of three remplissage techniques compared to intact native specimens
| 0° gh-Abduction | Mean [Nm] | SD | 95 % CI for Mean |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
| 0° ER | Intact | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.01 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0 | 0.04 | −0.03 | 0.04 | n.s. | |
| Pully (T2) | −0.01 | 0.03 | −0.04 | 0.02 | n.s. | |
| Tape (T3) | 0 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.02 | n.s. | |
| 30° ER | Intact | 0.04 | 0.06 | −0.02 | 0.1 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0.09 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.21 | n.s. | |
| Pully (T2) | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.01 | 0.34 | n.s. | |
| Tape (T3) | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0 | 0.24 | n.s. | |
| 60° ER | Intact | 0.04 | 0.14 | −0.09 | 0.17 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0.2 | 0.33 | −0.1 | 0.5 | n.s. | |
| Pully (T2) | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 0.5 | n.s. | |
| Tape (T3) | 0.21 | 0.33 | −0.1 | 0.52 | n.s. | |
| 30° gh-Abduction | ||||||
| 0° ER | Intact | 0 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.01 | |
| Knot (T1) | −0.02 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.01 | n.s. | |
| Pully (T2) | −0.02 | 0.04 | −0.06 | 0.01 | n.s. | |
| Tape (T3) | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.03 | 0.01 | n.s. | |
| 30° ER | Intact | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.11 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.14 | n.s. | |
| Pully (T2) | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.28 | n.s. | |
| Tape (T3) | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.14 | n.s. | |
| 60° ER | Intact | 0.06 | 0.11 | −0.05 | 0.17 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0.1 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.23 | n.s. | |
| Pully (T2) | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.3 | n.s. | |
| Tape (T3) | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.17 | n.s. | |
| 60° gh-Abduction | ||||||
| 0° ER | Intact | 0 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.02 | n.s. | |
| Pully (T2) | 0 | 0.02 | −0.02 | 0.02 | n.s. | |
| Tape (T3) | 0.01 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.02 | n.s. | |
| 30° ER | Intact | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.11 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.2 | 0.05 | |
| Pully (T2) | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.2 | 0.02 | |
| Tape (T3) | 0.14 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.02 | |
| 60° ER | Intact | 0.05 | 0.09 | −0.03 | 0.13 | |
| Knot (T1) | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.25 | 0.02 | |
| Pully (T2) | 0.18 | 0.1 | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.04 | |
| Tape (T3) | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.00 | |
Area of M. infraspinatus tendon coverage [%] over standardized Hill-Sachs defect
| Technique | Area |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of M. infraspinatus tendon coverage over total Hill-Sachs defect zone | T1 (Knot) | 13.3 % | |
| T2 (Pulley) | 15.9 % | ||
| T3 (Tape) | 26.8 % | 0.03 |