Yoshiaki Itoigawa1,2, John W Sperling3, Scott P Steinmann3, Eiji Itoi4, Kai-Nan An5. 1. Biomechanics Laboratory and Tendon and Soft Tissue Biology Laboratory, Division of Orthopedic Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. yitoiga@juntendo.ac.jp. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, Chiba, 279-0021, Japan. yitoiga@juntendo.ac.jp. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 5. Biomechanics Laboratory and Tendon and Soft Tissue Biology Laboratory, Division of Orthopedic Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the contact areas of Bankart repair with suture anchors placed on the articular surface of the glenoid versus at the rim of the glenoid because it is unclear which technique most effectively restores the footprint after Bankart repair. METHODS: Ten fresh frozen cadaveric shoulders (mean age 70.7 years) were dissected. The attachment site of the capsulolabral complex from the 1 o' clock position to the 6 o'clock position was marked with ink, and the contact area of the anterior-inferior capsulolabral complex on the glenoid neck was measured using imageJ. Bankart lesions were created, and two types of Bankart repair were performed on each specimen. The suture anchors were inserted at the glenoid rim (Rim group) and onto the glenoid articular surface 2 mm from the rim (Surface group). Using pressure-sensitive films, we examined the interface contact area. RESULTS: The Rim group recreated 64.9% of the native surface area, while the Surface group recreated 47.3% of the area. The Rim group recreated significantly greater contact area compared to the Surface group (P = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: The anchor placement to the glenoid rim recreates the footprint of the capsulolabral complex on the anterior inferior glenoid better than the anchor placement onto the articular surface.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the contact areas of Bankart repair with suture anchors placed on the articular surface of the glenoid versus at the rim of the glenoid because it is unclear which technique most effectively restores the footprint after Bankart repair. METHODS: Ten fresh frozen cadaveric shoulders (mean age 70.7 years) were dissected. The attachment site of the capsulolabral complex from the 1 o' clock position to the 6 o'clock position was marked with ink, and the contact area of the anterior-inferior capsulolabral complex on the glenoid neck was measured using imageJ. Bankart lesions were created, and two types of Bankart repair were performed on each specimen. The suture anchors were inserted at the glenoid rim (Rim group) and onto the glenoid articular surface 2 mm from the rim (Surface group). Using pressure-sensitive films, we examined the interface contact area. RESULTS: The Rim group recreated 64.9% of the native surface area, while the Surface group recreated 47.3% of the area. The Rim group recreated significantly greater contact area compared to the Surface group (P = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: The anchor placement to the glenoid rim recreates the footprint of the capsulolabral complex on the anterior inferior glenoid better than the anchor placement onto the articular surface.