Cargando…
Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors
BACKGROUND: Traditional Bankart repair using bone tunnels has a reported failure rate between 0% and 5% in long-term studies. Arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors has become more popular; however, reported failure rates have been cited between 4% and 18%. There have been no satisfactory...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26779555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967115621882 |
_version_ | 1782409773129400320 |
---|---|
author | Judson, Christopher H. Charette, Ryan Cavanaugh, Zachary Shea, Kevin P. |
author_facet | Judson, Christopher H. Charette, Ryan Cavanaugh, Zachary Shea, Kevin P. |
author_sort | Judson, Christopher H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Traditional Bankart repair using bone tunnels has a reported failure rate between 0% and 5% in long-term studies. Arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors has become more popular; however, reported failure rates have been cited between 4% and 18%. There have been no satisfactory explanations for the differences in these outcomes. HYPOTHESIS: Bone tunnels will provide increased coverage of the native labral footprint and demonstrate greater load to failure and stiffness and decreased cyclic displacement in biomechanical testing. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty-two fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used. For footprint analysis, the labral footprint area was marked and measured using a Microscribe technique in 6 specimens. A 3-suture anchor repair was performed, and the area of the uncovered footprint was measured. This was repeated with traditional bone tunnel repair. For the biomechanical analysis, 8 paired specimens were randomly assigned to bone tunnel or suture anchor repair with the contralateral specimen assigned to the other technique. Each specimen underwent cyclic loading (5-25 N, 1 Hz, 100 cycles) and load to failure (15 mm/min). Displacement was measured using a digitized video recording system. RESULTS: Bankart repair with bone tunnels provided significantly more coverage of the native labral footprint than repair with suture anchors (100% vs 27%, P < .001). Repair with bone tunnels (21.9 ± 8.7 N/mm) showed significantly greater stiffness than suture anchor repair (17.1 ± 3.5 N/mm, P = .032). Mean load to failure and gap formation after cyclic loading were not statistically different between bone tunnel (259 ± 76.8 N, 0.209 ± 0.064 mm) and suture anchor repairs (221.5 ± 59.0 N [P = .071], 0.161 ± 0.51 mm [P = .100]). CONCLUSION: Bankart repair with bone tunnels completely covered the footprint anatomy while suture anchor repair covered less than 30% of the native footprint. Repair using bone tunnels resulted in significantly greater stiffness than repair with suture anchors. Load to failure and gap formation were not significantly different. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4710110 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47101102016-01-15 Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors Judson, Christopher H. Charette, Ryan Cavanaugh, Zachary Shea, Kevin P. Orthop J Sports Med 110 BACKGROUND: Traditional Bankart repair using bone tunnels has a reported failure rate between 0% and 5% in long-term studies. Arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors has become more popular; however, reported failure rates have been cited between 4% and 18%. There have been no satisfactory explanations for the differences in these outcomes. HYPOTHESIS: Bone tunnels will provide increased coverage of the native labral footprint and demonstrate greater load to failure and stiffness and decreased cyclic displacement in biomechanical testing. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty-two fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used. For footprint analysis, the labral footprint area was marked and measured using a Microscribe technique in 6 specimens. A 3-suture anchor repair was performed, and the area of the uncovered footprint was measured. This was repeated with traditional bone tunnel repair. For the biomechanical analysis, 8 paired specimens were randomly assigned to bone tunnel or suture anchor repair with the contralateral specimen assigned to the other technique. Each specimen underwent cyclic loading (5-25 N, 1 Hz, 100 cycles) and load to failure (15 mm/min). Displacement was measured using a digitized video recording system. RESULTS: Bankart repair with bone tunnels provided significantly more coverage of the native labral footprint than repair with suture anchors (100% vs 27%, P < .001). Repair with bone tunnels (21.9 ± 8.7 N/mm) showed significantly greater stiffness than suture anchor repair (17.1 ± 3.5 N/mm, P = .032). Mean load to failure and gap formation after cyclic loading were not statistically different between bone tunnel (259 ± 76.8 N, 0.209 ± 0.064 mm) and suture anchor repairs (221.5 ± 59.0 N [P = .071], 0.161 ± 0.51 mm [P = .100]). CONCLUSION: Bankart repair with bone tunnels completely covered the footprint anatomy while suture anchor repair covered less than 30% of the native footprint. Repair using bone tunnels resulted in significantly greater stiffness than repair with suture anchors. Load to failure and gap formation were not significantly different. SAGE Publications 2016-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4710110/ /pubmed/26779555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967115621882 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) 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 | 110 Judson, Christopher H. Charette, Ryan Cavanaugh, Zachary Shea, Kevin P. Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors |
title | Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors |
title_full | Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors |
title_fullStr | Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors |
title_full_unstemmed | Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors |
title_short | Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors |
title_sort | anatomic and biomechanical comparison of traditional bankart repair with bone tunnels and bankart repair utilizing suture anchors |
topic | 110 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26779555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967115621882 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT judsonchristopherh anatomicandbiomechanicalcomparisonoftraditionalbankartrepairwithbonetunnelsandbankartrepairutilizingsutureanchors AT charetteryan anatomicandbiomechanicalcomparisonoftraditionalbankartrepairwithbonetunnelsandbankartrepairutilizingsutureanchors AT cavanaughzachary anatomicandbiomechanicalcomparisonoftraditionalbankartrepairwithbonetunnelsandbankartrepairutilizingsutureanchors AT sheakevinp anatomicandbiomechanicalcomparisonoftraditionalbankartrepairwithbonetunnelsandbankartrepairutilizingsutureanchors |