Cargando…
Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery
BACKGROUND: The number of revision rotator cuff cases is increasing. The literature is lacking guidance or biomechanical evaluation for fixation strength in a revision case scenario. Therefore, the aim of the study was to provide biomechanical data investigating primary fixation strength of a transo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053743/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30025529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2089-4 |
_version_ | 1783340881239080960 |
---|---|
author | Dyrna, Felix Voss, Andreas Pauzenberger, Leo Obopilwe, Elifho Mazzocca, Augustus D. Castagna, Alessandro Edgar, Cory |
author_facet | Dyrna, Felix Voss, Andreas Pauzenberger, Leo Obopilwe, Elifho Mazzocca, Augustus D. Castagna, Alessandro Edgar, Cory |
author_sort | Dyrna, Felix |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The number of revision rotator cuff cases is increasing. The literature is lacking guidance or biomechanical evaluation for fixation strength in a revision case scenario. Therefore, the aim of the study was to provide biomechanical data investigating primary fixation strength of a transosseous technique after anchor pullout failure of a single row reconstruction. It was hypothesized that an arthroscopic transosseous repair system as a procedure for rotator cuff revisions is providing equivalent stability compared to a primary single row suture anchor fixation due to change of fixation site. METHODS: Eight matched pairs (n = 16) of fresh frozen human shoulders were tested. The paired specimen shoulders were randomly divided into two repair groups (A single row and B primary transosseous repair). The potted specimens were mounted onto the Servohydraulic test system. Both groups were tested under cyclic loading followed by load to failure testing. Suture anchor repair shoulders (group A) that were tested to failure underwent a revision transosseous repair and were subsequently tested again using the same setup and protocol (group C). RESULTS: The mean native footprint areas did not show a significant difference between groups. The reconstructed footprint area showed a significantly greater coverage in favor of the transosseous repair. Ultimate load to failure of reconstructions with the primary anchor fixation (344.73 N ± 63.19) and the primary transosseous device (375.36 N ± 70.27) was not significantly higher compared to the revision repair (332.19 N ± 119.01 p = 0.45, p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: The tested transosseous anchor device is a suitable option to widely used suture anchors, providing equivalent fixation properties even in a revision case scenario. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study, Biomechanics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6053743 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60537432018-07-23 Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery Dyrna, Felix Voss, Andreas Pauzenberger, Leo Obopilwe, Elifho Mazzocca, Augustus D. Castagna, Alessandro Edgar, Cory BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: The number of revision rotator cuff cases is increasing. The literature is lacking guidance or biomechanical evaluation for fixation strength in a revision case scenario. Therefore, the aim of the study was to provide biomechanical data investigating primary fixation strength of a transosseous technique after anchor pullout failure of a single row reconstruction. It was hypothesized that an arthroscopic transosseous repair system as a procedure for rotator cuff revisions is providing equivalent stability compared to a primary single row suture anchor fixation due to change of fixation site. METHODS: Eight matched pairs (n = 16) of fresh frozen human shoulders were tested. The paired specimen shoulders were randomly divided into two repair groups (A single row and B primary transosseous repair). The potted specimens were mounted onto the Servohydraulic test system. Both groups were tested under cyclic loading followed by load to failure testing. Suture anchor repair shoulders (group A) that were tested to failure underwent a revision transosseous repair and were subsequently tested again using the same setup and protocol (group C). RESULTS: The mean native footprint areas did not show a significant difference between groups. The reconstructed footprint area showed a significantly greater coverage in favor of the transosseous repair. Ultimate load to failure of reconstructions with the primary anchor fixation (344.73 N ± 63.19) and the primary transosseous device (375.36 N ± 70.27) was not significantly higher compared to the revision repair (332.19 N ± 119.01 p = 0.45, p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: The tested transosseous anchor device is a suitable option to widely used suture anchors, providing equivalent fixation properties even in a revision case scenario. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study, Biomechanics. BioMed Central 2018-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6053743/ /pubmed/30025529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2089-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Dyrna, Felix Voss, Andreas Pauzenberger, Leo Obopilwe, Elifho Mazzocca, Augustus D. Castagna, Alessandro Edgar, Cory Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery |
title | Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery |
title_full | Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery |
title_fullStr | Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery |
title_short | Biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery |
title_sort | biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic transosseous repair as a revision option for failed rotator cuff surgery |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053743/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30025529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2089-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dyrnafelix biomechanicalevaluationofanarthroscopictransosseousrepairasarevisionoptionforfailedrotatorcuffsurgery AT vossandreas biomechanicalevaluationofanarthroscopictransosseousrepairasarevisionoptionforfailedrotatorcuffsurgery AT pauzenbergerleo biomechanicalevaluationofanarthroscopictransosseousrepairasarevisionoptionforfailedrotatorcuffsurgery AT obopilweelifho biomechanicalevaluationofanarthroscopictransosseousrepairasarevisionoptionforfailedrotatorcuffsurgery AT mazzoccaaugustusd biomechanicalevaluationofanarthroscopictransosseousrepairasarevisionoptionforfailedrotatorcuffsurgery AT castagnaalessandro biomechanicalevaluationofanarthroscopictransosseousrepairasarevisionoptionforfailedrotatorcuffsurgery AT edgarcory biomechanicalevaluationofanarthroscopictransosseousrepairasarevisionoptionforfailedrotatorcuffsurgery |