Cargando…

Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques

BACKGROUND: The biomechanical properties of the 1.2-mm suture tape have outperformed conventional sutures in previous studies. PURPOSE: To compare the loop and knot security of 2 tape-type and 1 cord-type sutures using different arthroscopic knot techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baek, Samuel, Shin, Myung Ho, Kim, Tae-Min, Kim, Seok, Lee, Geum-Ho, Oh, Kyung-Soo, Chung, Seok Won
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10605706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37900867
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671231205240
_version_ 1785127142450790400
author Baek, Samuel
Shin, Myung Ho
Kim, Tae-Min
Kim, Seok
Lee, Geum-Ho
Oh, Kyung-Soo
Chung, Seok Won
author_facet Baek, Samuel
Shin, Myung Ho
Kim, Tae-Min
Kim, Seok
Lee, Geum-Ho
Oh, Kyung-Soo
Chung, Seok Won
author_sort Baek, Samuel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The biomechanical properties of the 1.2-mm suture tape have outperformed conventional sutures in previous studies. PURPOSE: To compare the loop and knot security of 2 tape-type and 1 cord-type sutures using different arthroscopic knot techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: The biomechanical characteristics of the 1.2-mm tape, 2.0-mm tape, and 0.5-mm No. 2 suture were compared using 4 different knot types: 2 sliding knots (Samsung Medical Center [SMC] and Tennessee) and 2 nonsliding knots (2-throw surgeon’s and 2-throw square) with 2 and 3 additional reverse half-hitches on alternating posts (RHAPs) in a closed-loop system on a materials testing device. Each configuration was tested for loop security (maximal load applied between 0 and 3 mm of displacement), knot security (ultimate failure load), and failure mode with cyclical loading (30 N load for 20 cycles at 1 cycle per sec until failure). Loop and knot security among the configurations were compared using an analysis of variance. RESULTS: With 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape showed significantly greater loop security than the 1.2-mm tape and suture (P = .001). With 3 RHAPs, the loop security of the suture was significantly superior compared with the 1.2-mm tape (P = .010). Regarding knot security, with 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape was significantly better than the 1.2-mm tape and suture (P < .001), while with 3 RHAPs, the suture was significantly superior to the 1.2-mm tape (P = .012). Using a square knot with 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape had significantly greater loop security (P = .001) and better knot security (P = .001) to the 1.2-mm tape and suture. Using the Tennessee knot with 2 RHAPs, the 1.2-mm tape had less loop security (P = .011) and knot security (P = .005) than the suture. Using the SMC knot with 3 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape and suture were significantly superior in loop security (P = .001) and knot security (P < .001) to the 1.2-mm tape. There was no significant difference in the failure mode between tapes and sutures with 2 and 3 RHAPs. CONCLUSION: With 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape demonstrated greater resistance to suture loop displacement and better knot security compared with the 1.2-mm tape and suture. However, with 3 RHAPs, the 1.2-mm tape manifested weaker loop and knot security compared with the suture.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10605706
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106057062023-10-28 Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques Baek, Samuel Shin, Myung Ho Kim, Tae-Min Kim, Seok Lee, Geum-Ho Oh, Kyung-Soo Chung, Seok Won Orthop J Sports Med Original Research BACKGROUND: The biomechanical properties of the 1.2-mm suture tape have outperformed conventional sutures in previous studies. PURPOSE: To compare the loop and knot security of 2 tape-type and 1 cord-type sutures using different arthroscopic knot techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: The biomechanical characteristics of the 1.2-mm tape, 2.0-mm tape, and 0.5-mm No. 2 suture were compared using 4 different knot types: 2 sliding knots (Samsung Medical Center [SMC] and Tennessee) and 2 nonsliding knots (2-throw surgeon’s and 2-throw square) with 2 and 3 additional reverse half-hitches on alternating posts (RHAPs) in a closed-loop system on a materials testing device. Each configuration was tested for loop security (maximal load applied between 0 and 3 mm of displacement), knot security (ultimate failure load), and failure mode with cyclical loading (30 N load for 20 cycles at 1 cycle per sec until failure). Loop and knot security among the configurations were compared using an analysis of variance. RESULTS: With 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape showed significantly greater loop security than the 1.2-mm tape and suture (P = .001). With 3 RHAPs, the loop security of the suture was significantly superior compared with the 1.2-mm tape (P = .010). Regarding knot security, with 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape was significantly better than the 1.2-mm tape and suture (P < .001), while with 3 RHAPs, the suture was significantly superior to the 1.2-mm tape (P = .012). Using a square knot with 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape had significantly greater loop security (P = .001) and better knot security (P = .001) to the 1.2-mm tape and suture. Using the Tennessee knot with 2 RHAPs, the 1.2-mm tape had less loop security (P = .011) and knot security (P = .005) than the suture. Using the SMC knot with 3 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape and suture were significantly superior in loop security (P = .001) and knot security (P < .001) to the 1.2-mm tape. There was no significant difference in the failure mode between tapes and sutures with 2 and 3 RHAPs. CONCLUSION: With 2 RHAPs, the 2.0-mm tape demonstrated greater resistance to suture loop displacement and better knot security compared with the 1.2-mm tape and suture. However, with 3 RHAPs, the 1.2-mm tape manifested weaker loop and knot security compared with the suture. SAGE Publications 2023-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10605706/ /pubmed/37900867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671231205240 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Baek, Samuel
Shin, Myung Ho
Kim, Tae-Min
Kim, Seok
Lee, Geum-Ho
Oh, Kyung-Soo
Chung, Seok Won
Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques
title Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques
title_full Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques
title_fullStr Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques
title_short Biomechanical Comparison of 1.2-mm Suture Tape, 2.0-mm Suture Tape, and 0.5-mm Suture Using Various Arthroscopic Knot Techniques
title_sort biomechanical comparison of 1.2-mm suture tape, 2.0-mm suture tape, and 0.5-mm suture using various arthroscopic knot techniques
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10605706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37900867
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671231205240
work_keys_str_mv AT baeksamuel biomechanicalcomparisonof12mmsuturetape20mmsuturetapeand05mmsutureusingvariousarthroscopicknottechniques
AT shinmyungho biomechanicalcomparisonof12mmsuturetape20mmsuturetapeand05mmsutureusingvariousarthroscopicknottechniques
AT kimtaemin biomechanicalcomparisonof12mmsuturetape20mmsuturetapeand05mmsutureusingvariousarthroscopicknottechniques
AT kimseok biomechanicalcomparisonof12mmsuturetape20mmsuturetapeand05mmsutureusingvariousarthroscopicknottechniques
AT leegeumho biomechanicalcomparisonof12mmsuturetape20mmsuturetapeand05mmsutureusingvariousarthroscopicknottechniques
AT ohkyungsoo biomechanicalcomparisonof12mmsuturetape20mmsuturetapeand05mmsutureusingvariousarthroscopicknottechniques
AT chungseokwon biomechanicalcomparisonof12mmsuturetape20mmsuturetapeand05mmsutureusingvariousarthroscopicknottechniques