Cynthia A Kahlenberg1, Benedict U Nwachukwu2, Hamidreza Jahandar3, Kathleen N Meyers3, Amar S Ranawat2, Anil S Ranawat2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, U.S.A.. Electronic address: kahlenbergc@hss.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, U.S.A. 3. Department of Biomechanics, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the percentage of gluteus medius and minimus tendon footprint restoration that can be achieved with fixation using single-row repair versus double-row repair and (2) to evaluate the yield load of a repair of the gluteus medius and minimus tendon using single-row versus double-row repair techniques. METHODS: Twelve human fresh-frozen cadaveric hip specimens (6 matched pairs, 4 female, mean age 47.5 ± 14.5 years) were tested. Specimens were excluded if they had any prior hip surgery or injury, if any abnormality of the tendon was noted on dissection, or if they had a body mass index <20 or >35 or a T-score <2.0 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. Matched pairs were randomized to receive either double-row repair with 2 standard suture anchors and 2 knotless anchor devices or a single-row repair with suture anchors only. The percentage of the footprint area covered after repair was determined using a computer-assisted digitization algorithm. With a mechanical testing system, each repaired specimen was tested for mechanical strength first with cyclic loading and then load to failure testing. RESULTS: Footprint coverage of the lateral facet was significantly greater for double-row repair (mean 76.6%) compared with single-row repair (mean 50.3%) (P = .03). There was no significant difference between single- and double-row repair for posterior-superior or anterior facet coverage. Mechanical testing showed a higher mean yield load for double-row anchor repair (197.6 ± 61.7 N vs 163.5 ± 35.4 N for single-row repair), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .15). The predominant mode of failure was suture pullout through the musculotendinous unit (9/12 specimens: 5 double-row and 4 single-row). CONCLUSIONS: For hip abductor tears, double-row suture repair yields improved footprint coverage compared with single-row repair. Although it did not reach statistical significance, there was a higher mean yield load in the double-row group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Double-row suture fixation technique for hip abductor tears maximizes strength and footprint coverage of the repair.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the percentage of gluteus medius and minimus tendon footprint restoration that can be achieved with fixation using single-row repair versus double-row repair and (2) to evaluate the yield load of a repair of the gluteus medius and minimus tendon using single-row versus double-row repair techniques. METHODS: Twelve human fresh-frozen cadaveric hip specimens (6 matched pairs, 4 female, mean age 47.5 ± 14.5 years) were tested. Specimens were excluded if they had any prior hip surgery or injury, if any abnormality of the tendon was noted on dissection, or if they had a body mass index <20 or >35 or a T-score <2.0 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. Matched pairs were randomized to receive either double-row repair with 2 standard suture anchors and 2 knotless anchor devices or a single-row repair with suture anchors only. The percentage of the footprint area covered after repair was determined using a computer-assisted digitization algorithm. With a mechanical testing system, each repaired specimen was tested for mechanical strength first with cyclic loading and then load to failure testing. RESULTS: Footprint coverage of the lateral facet was significantly greater for double-row repair (mean 76.6%) compared with single-row repair (mean 50.3%) (P = .03). There was no significant difference between single- and double-row repair for posterior-superior or anterior facet coverage. Mechanical testing showed a higher mean yield load for double-row anchor repair (197.6 ± 61.7 N vs 163.5 ± 35.4 N for single-row repair), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .15). The predominant mode of failure was suture pullout through the musculotendinous unit (9/12 specimens: 5 double-row and 4 single-row). CONCLUSIONS: For hip abductor tears, double-row suture repair yields improved footprint coverage compared with single-row repair. Although it did not reach statistical significance, there was a higher mean yield load in the double-row group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Double-row suture fixation technique for hip abductor tears maximizes strength and footprint coverage of the repair.
Authors: Molly A Day; Kyle J Hancock; Ryan S Selley; Erica L Swartwout; Matthew Dooley; Alan G Shamrock; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Harry G Greditzer; Anil S Ranawat Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg Date: 2022-07-02