Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques

The aim of the study was to evaluate the time zero contact pressure over a defined rotator cuff footprint using different repair and stitch techniques in an established sheep model. Forty fresh-frozen sheep shoulders were randomly assigned to five repair groups: single-row repair using simple stitch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baums, Mike H., Spahn, G., Steckel, H., Fischer, A., Schultz, W., Klinger, H.-M.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19305972
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0771-7
_version_ 1782174604591104000
author Baums, Mike H.
Spahn, G.
Steckel, H.
Fischer, A.
Schultz, W.
Klinger, H.-M.
author_facet Baums, Mike H.
Spahn, G.
Steckel, H.
Fischer, A.
Schultz, W.
Klinger, H.-M.
author_sort Baums, Mike H.
collection PubMed
description The aim of the study was to evaluate the time zero contact pressure over a defined rotator cuff footprint using different repair and stitch techniques in an established sheep model. Forty fresh-frozen sheep shoulders were randomly assigned to five repair groups: single-row repair using simple stitches (SRA-s), single-row repair using horizontal mattress stitches (SRA-m), and single-row repair using arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches (SRA-ama). Double-row repair was either performed with a combination of simple and horizontal mattress stitches (DRA-sm) or with arthroscopic Mason-Allen/horizontal mattress stitches (DRA-amam). Investigations were performed using a pressure-sensitive film system. The average contact pressure and pressure pattern were measured for each group. Contact pressure was lowest in SRA-m followed by SRA-s. SRA-ama showed highest contact pressure of all single-row treatment groups (P < 0.05). DRA-amam presented the highest overall contact pressure (P < 0.05), whereas DRA-sm exerted contact pressure equal to that of SRA-ama. Both double-row techniques showed the most expanded pressure pattern. Average contact pressures for the more complex single- and double-row techniques utilizing arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches were greater than were those of the repair techniques utilizing simple and horizontal mattress stitches. However, the contact pattern between the anchors could be increased by using the double-row technique, resulting in more footprint coverage compared to patterns utilizing the single-row techniques. These results support the use of the more complex arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches and may improve the environment for healing of the repaired rotator cuff tendon.
format Text
id pubmed-2782118
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27821182009-11-30 Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques Baums, Mike H. Spahn, G. Steckel, H. Fischer, A. Schultz, W. Klinger, H.-M. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Shoulder The aim of the study was to evaluate the time zero contact pressure over a defined rotator cuff footprint using different repair and stitch techniques in an established sheep model. Forty fresh-frozen sheep shoulders were randomly assigned to five repair groups: single-row repair using simple stitches (SRA-s), single-row repair using horizontal mattress stitches (SRA-m), and single-row repair using arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches (SRA-ama). Double-row repair was either performed with a combination of simple and horizontal mattress stitches (DRA-sm) or with arthroscopic Mason-Allen/horizontal mattress stitches (DRA-amam). Investigations were performed using a pressure-sensitive film system. The average contact pressure and pressure pattern were measured for each group. Contact pressure was lowest in SRA-m followed by SRA-s. SRA-ama showed highest contact pressure of all single-row treatment groups (P < 0.05). DRA-amam presented the highest overall contact pressure (P < 0.05), whereas DRA-sm exerted contact pressure equal to that of SRA-ama. Both double-row techniques showed the most expanded pressure pattern. Average contact pressures for the more complex single- and double-row techniques utilizing arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches were greater than were those of the repair techniques utilizing simple and horizontal mattress stitches. However, the contact pattern between the anchors could be increased by using the double-row technique, resulting in more footprint coverage compared to patterns utilizing the single-row techniques. These results support the use of the more complex arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches and may improve the environment for healing of the repaired rotator cuff tendon. Springer-Verlag 2009-03-21 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC2782118/ /pubmed/19305972 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0771-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2009 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Shoulder
Baums, Mike H.
Spahn, G.
Steckel, H.
Fischer, A.
Schultz, W.
Klinger, H.-M.
Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques
title Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques
title_full Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques
title_short Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques
title_sort comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques
topic Shoulder
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19305972
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0771-7
work_keys_str_mv AT baumsmikeh comparativeevaluationofthetendonboneinterfacecontactpressureindifferentsingleversusdoublerowsutureanchorrepairtechniques
AT spahng comparativeevaluationofthetendonboneinterfacecontactpressureindifferentsingleversusdoublerowsutureanchorrepairtechniques
AT steckelh comparativeevaluationofthetendonboneinterfacecontactpressureindifferentsingleversusdoublerowsutureanchorrepairtechniques
AT fischera comparativeevaluationofthetendonboneinterfacecontactpressureindifferentsingleversusdoublerowsutureanchorrepairtechniques
AT schultzw comparativeevaluationofthetendonboneinterfacecontactpressureindifferentsingleversusdoublerowsutureanchorrepairtechniques
AT klingerhm comparativeevaluationofthetendonboneinterfacecontactpressureindifferentsingleversusdoublerowsutureanchorrepairtechniques