| Literature DB >> 27975065 |
ZiYing Wu1, Chong Zhang2, Peng Zhang1, TianWu Chen1, ShiYi Chen1, JiWu Chen1.
Abstract
Purpose. To compare the biomechanical properties of 3 suture-bridge techniques for rotator cuff repair. Methods. Twelve pair-matched fresh-frozen shoulder specimens were randomized to 3 groups of different repair types: the medially Knotted Suture Bridge (KSB), the medially Untied Suture Bridge (USB), and the Modified Suture Bridge (MSB). Cyclic loading and load-to-failure test were performed. Parameters of elongation, stiffness, load at failure, and mode of failure were recorded. Results. The MSB technique had the significantly greatest load to failure (515.6 ± 78.0 N, P = 0.04 for KSB group; P < 0.001 for USB group), stiffness (58.0 ± 10.7 N/mm, P = 0.005 for KSB group; P < 0.001 for USB group), and lowest elongation (1.49 ± 0.39 mm, P = 0.009 for KSB group; P = 0.001 for USB group) among 3 groups. The KSB repair had significantly higher ultimate load (443.5 ± 65.0 N) than USB repair (363.5 ± 52.3 N, P = 0.024). However, there was no statistical difference in stiffness and elongation between KSB and USB technique (P = 0.396 for stiffness and P = 0.242 for elongation, resp.). The failure mode for all specimens was suture pulling through the cuff tendon. Conclusions. Our modified suture bridge technique (MSB) may provide enhanced biomechanical properties when compared with medially knotted or knotless repair. Clinical Relevance. Our modified technique may represent a promising alternative in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27975065 PMCID: PMC5126390 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9872643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1The medially Knotted Suture Bridge (KSB) technique. Black solid circle means knot. RC, rotator cuff; GT, greater tubercle.
Figure 2The medially Untied Suture Bridge (USB) technique. Black hollow circle means knotless. RC, rotator cuff; GT, greater tubercle.
Figure 3The Modified Suture Bridge (MSB) repair.
Figure 4(a) The fixation method of specimens was shown in the image with use of a custom soft-tissue clamp proximally and multiple fixations distally. (b) The construct failed because of suture pulling through the cuff tendon.
Biomechanical comparison of 3 constructs.
| KSB | USB | MSB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Load to failure, N | 443.5 ± 65.0& | 363.5 ± 52.3 | 515.6 ± 78.0 |
| Stiffness, N/mm | 39.0 ± 6.0 | 34.63 ± 7.3 | 58.0 ± 10.7# |
| Elongation, mm | 2.29 ± 0.57 | 2.63 ± 0.68 | 1.49 ± 0.39$ |
∗: MSB group had significantly higher value compared to that of KSB group and USB group (P = 0.04 for KSB group; P < 0.001 for USB group).
#: MSB group had significantly higher value compared to that of KSB group and USB group (P = 0.005 for KSB group; P < 0.001 for USB group).
$: MSB group had significantly higher value compared to that of KSB group and USB group (P = 0.009 for KSB group; P = 0.001 for USB group).
&: KSB group had significantly higher value compared to that of USB group (P = 0.024).