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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |