Contact Area, Contact Pressure, and Pressure Patterns of the Tendon-Bone Interface after Rotator Cuff Repair

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1869-1874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilihamu Tuoheti ◽  
Eiji Itoi ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto ◽  
Nobutoshi Seki ◽  
Hidekazu Abe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Contact Pressure ◽  
Contact Area ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Bone Interface ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background The contact pressure and contact area at the tendon-bone interface after the most commonly used rotator cuff repair methods have not been investigated. Hypothesis There are no significant differences among the transosseous, the single-row suture anchor, and the double-row suture anchor techniques in terms of contact pressure, contact area, and pressure patterns at the tendon-bone interface. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods After creating a full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear in 10 cadaveric shoulder specimens, we inserted pressure-sensitive film between the tendon stump and the bone, and we repaired the tear by (1) transosseous, (2) single-row suture anchor, and (3) double-row suture anchor techniques. Results The contact area of the double-row technique was 42% greater than that of the transosseous technique (P <. 0001) and 60% greater than that of the single-row technique. The contact area of the transosseous technique was 31% greater than that of the single-row technique (P =. 0015). The average pressures of the single-row and double-row techniques were 18% (P =. 014) and 16% (P =. 03) greater, respectively, than that of the transosseous technique, but there was no significant difference between the single-row and double-row techniques (P =. 915). Conclusions The double-row technique produced the greatest contact area and the second-highest contact pressure, whereas the single-row technique created the highest contact pressure and the least contact area. The transosseous technique produced the second-greatest contact area and the least contact pressure. Clinical Relevance The double-row suture anchor technique and the transosseous technique may provide a better environment for tendon healing.

scholarly journals In Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery, is there a Difference in the Results of Repair made with Single or Double Rows according to the Shape and Size of the Tear?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozgun Karakus ◽  
Ozgur Karaman ◽  
Ahmet Sinan Sari ◽  
Baransel Saygi
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Shape And Size

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on the results of patients applied with arthroscopic full layer total layer rotator cuff repair made according to the shape and size of the tear.Methods: The study included a total of 120 patients applied with arthroscopic full layer rotator cuff repair as single or double row repair, comprising 69 (57.5%) females and 51 (42.5%) males. The patients were separated into 3 groups of 40 according to the shape of the tear, as Group A (crescent type), Group B (U type), and Group C (L type). Within each group, classification was made according to the size of the tear. The long-term postoperative functional results were compared between the groups. Results: The mean age of the whole sample was 66.68±6.86 years (range, 50-81 years). A statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of Constant Murley (CM), ASES, and UCLA scores (p<0.05). The scores of Group A of all the scales were found to be higher than those of Group C (p<0.05). In single row and double row repair of small and medium-sized tears of all shapes, no significant difference was determined in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). In the large tears, no significant difference was determined between crescent and U-shaped tears in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). Conclusions: No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of crescent type tears of all sizes. In the repair of small and medium-sized U type tears, no significant difference was determined between single and double row repair in respect of the CM and UCLA scores. In large U-shaped tears, the CM, ASES, and UCLA scores were determined to be high in double row repair. No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of L type small and medium-sized tears. In the large L -shaped tears, the results of the single row repair were found to be higher than those of the cases with double row repair.

scholarly journals In Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery, Is There a Difference in the Results of Repair Made With Single or Double Rows According to the Shape and Size of the Tear?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozgun Karakus ◽  
Ozgur Karaman ◽  
Ahmet Sinan Sari ◽  
Baransel Saygi
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Shape And Size

Abstract IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on the results of patients applied with arthroscopic full layer total layer rotator cuff repair made according to the shape and size of the tear.Materials and MethodsThe study included a total of 120 patients applied with arthroscopic full layer rotator cuff repair as single or double row repair, comprising 69 (57.5%) females and 51 (42.5%) males. The patients were separated into 3 groups of 40 according to the shape of the tear, as Group A (crescent type), Group B (U type), and Group C (L type). Within each group, classification was made according to the size of the tear. The long-term postoperative functional results were compared between the groups. ResultsThe mean age of the whole sample was 66.68±6.86 years (range, 50-81 years). A statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of Constant Murley (CM), ASES, and UCLA scores (p<0.05). The scores of Group A of all the scales were found to be higher than those of Group C (p<0.05). In single row and double row repair of small and medium-sized tears of all shapes, no significant difference was determined in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). In the large tears, no significant difference was determined between crescent and U-shaped tears in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05).ConclusionsNo significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of crescent type tears of all sizes. In the repair of small and medium-sized U type tears, no significant difference was determined between single and double row repair in respect of the CM and UCLA scores. In large U-shaped tears, the CM, ASES, and UCLA scores were determined to be high in double row repair. No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of L type small and medium-sized tears. In the large L -shaped tears, the results of the single row repair were found to be higher than those of the cases with double row repair.

scholarly journals Biomechanical comparison between single-row with triple-loaded suture anchor and suture-bridge double-row rotator cuff repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
He-Bei He ◽  
Yong Hu ◽  
Chuan Li ◽  
Cheng-Guo Li ◽  
Min-Cong Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Dr Method ◽  
Ultimate Failure ◽  
Cuff Repair

Abstract Background Numerous biomechanical and clinical studies comparing different techniques for rotator cuff repair have been reported, yet universal consensus regarding the superior technique has not achieved. A medially-based single-row with triple-loaded suture anchor (also referred to as the Southern California Orthopedic Institute [SCOI] row) and a suture-bridge double-row (SB-DR) with Push-Locks have been shown to result in comparable improvement in treating rotator cuff tear, yet the biomechanical difference is unknown. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether a SCOI row repair had comparable initial biomechanical properties to a SB-DR repair. Methods Six matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders with full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears we created were included. Two different repairs were performed for each pair (SCOI row and SB-DR methods). Specimens were mounted on a material testing machine to undergo cyclic loading, which was cycled from 10 to 100 N at 1 Hz for 500 cycles. Construct gap formation was recorded at an interval of 50 cycles. Samples were then loaded to failure and modes of failure were recorded. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and pair-t test were used for statistical analyses. Results The construct gap formation did not differ between SCOI row and SB-DR repairs (P = 0.056). The last gap displacement was 1.93 ± 0.37 mm for SCOI row repair, and 1.49 ± 0.55 mm for SB-DR repair. The tensile load for 5 mm of elongation and ultimate failure were higher for SCOI row repair compared to SB-DR repair (P = 0.011 and 0.028, respectively). The ultimate failure load was 326.34 ± 11.52 N in the SCOI row group, and 299.82 ± 27.27 N in the SB-DR group. Rotator cuff repair with the SCOI row method failed primarily at the suture- tendon interface, whereas pullout of the lateral row anchors was the primary mechanism of failure for repair with the SB-DR method. Conclusion Rotator cuff repair with the SCOI row method has superior biomechanical properties when compared with the SB-DR method. Therefore, SCOI row repair using a medially-based single-row technique with triple-loaded suture anchor is recommended to improve the initial strength in treating full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Can a Double-Row Anchorage Technique Improve Tendon Healing in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair?

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1247-1253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Charousset ◽  
Jean Grimberg ◽  
Louis Denis Duranthon ◽  
Laurance Bellaiche ◽  
David Petrover
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Constant Score ◽  
Tendon Healing ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background Increasing the rate of watertight tendon healing has been suggested as an important criterion for optimizing clinical results in rotator cuff arthroscopic repair. Hypothesis A double-row anchorage technique for rotator cuff repair will produce better clinical results and a better rate of tendon healing than a single-row technique. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods We compared 31 patients undergoing surgery with a double-row anchorage technique using Panalok anchors and Cuff Tack anchors and 35 patients with rotator cuff tear undergoing surgery with a single-row anchorage arthroscopic technique using Panalok anchors. We compared pre- and postoperative Constant score and tendon healing, as evaluated by computed tomographic arthrography 6 months after surgery, in these 2 groups. Results The Constant score increased significantly in both groups, with no difference between the 2 groups (P = .4). Rotator cuff healing was judged anatomic in 19 patients with double-row anchorage and in 14 patients with single-row anchorage; this difference between the groups was significant (P = .03). Conclusion In this first study comparing double- and single-row anchorage techniques, we found no significant difference in clinical results, but tendon healing rates were better with the double-row anchorage. Improvements in the double-row technique might lead to better clinical and tendon healing results.

Biomechanical Comparison of a Single-Row versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Kim ◽  
Neal S. ElAttrache ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Bong-Jae Jun ◽  
Sergai N. DeLaMora ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison ◽  
Cuff Repair
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document