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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Judson, Christopher H., Charette, Ryan, Cavanaugh, Zachary, Shea, Kevin P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2016
Materias:
110
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