Cargando…

A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel

BACKGROUND: The subscapularis peel (SP) and the lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) are 2 common exposure techniques for total shoulder arthroplasty. Although some biomechanical studies have suggested a higher resistance to failure with the LTO, clinical studies have demonstrated no difference in repa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele, Okoroha, Kelechi R., Oravec, Daniel J., Peltz, Cathryn D., Yeni, Yener N., Muh, Stephanie J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6334862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30675560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2017.11.008
_version_ 1783387796408369152
author Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele
Okoroha, Kelechi R.
Oravec, Daniel J.
Peltz, Cathryn D.
Yeni, Yener N.
Muh, Stephanie J.
author_facet Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele
Okoroha, Kelechi R.
Oravec, Daniel J.
Peltz, Cathryn D.
Yeni, Yener N.
Muh, Stephanie J.
author_sort Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The subscapularis peel (SP) and the lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) are 2 common exposure techniques for total shoulder arthroplasty. Although some biomechanical studies have suggested a higher resistance to failure with the LTO, clinical studies have demonstrated no difference in repair failure or tendon healing. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in biomechanically tested repair strength between our SP technique and the previously tested LTO technique. METHODS: Eleven cadaver shoulders were separated into 2 groups: 6 SPs and 5 LTOs. After initial loading for 3000 cycles, the specimens were incrementally loaded to 450 ± 50 N or catastrophic failure. Repair gapping was measured after cyclical loading, and fatigue life was analyzed after incremental loading. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mean repair gapping between the SP (2.40 ± 0.36 mm; mean ± standard deviation) and the LTO groups (3.10 ± 2.93 mm; P = .57). There was also no difference in the mean number of cycles to failure (6894 ± 956 vs. 6018 ± 1179; P = .14) and mean load to failure (400 ± 79 N vs. 340 ± 91 N; P = .21) between the SP and LTO techniques. However, there was more variability in bead gapping in the LTO group (P < .01). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in repair gapping, fatigue failure, and load to failure in comparing the SP and LTO repairs. However, the SP repair demonstrated significantly less variability in repair gapping. These findings suggest that initial fixation biomechanical properties between the 2 constructs are similar in vitro.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6334862
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63348622019-01-23 A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele Okoroha, Kelechi R. Oravec, Daniel J. Peltz, Cathryn D. Yeni, Yener N. Muh, Stephanie J. JSES Open Access Article BACKGROUND: The subscapularis peel (SP) and the lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) are 2 common exposure techniques for total shoulder arthroplasty. Although some biomechanical studies have suggested a higher resistance to failure with the LTO, clinical studies have demonstrated no difference in repair failure or tendon healing. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in biomechanically tested repair strength between our SP technique and the previously tested LTO technique. METHODS: Eleven cadaver shoulders were separated into 2 groups: 6 SPs and 5 LTOs. After initial loading for 3000 cycles, the specimens were incrementally loaded to 450 ± 50 N or catastrophic failure. Repair gapping was measured after cyclical loading, and fatigue life was analyzed after incremental loading. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mean repair gapping between the SP (2.40 ± 0.36 mm; mean ± standard deviation) and the LTO groups (3.10 ± 2.93 mm; P = .57). There was also no difference in the mean number of cycles to failure (6894 ± 956 vs. 6018 ± 1179; P = .14) and mean load to failure (400 ± 79 N vs. 340 ± 91 N; P = .21) between the SP and LTO techniques. However, there was more variability in bead gapping in the LTO group (P < .01). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in repair gapping, fatigue failure, and load to failure in comparing the SP and LTO repairs. However, the SP repair demonstrated significantly less variability in repair gapping. These findings suggest that initial fixation biomechanical properties between the 2 constructs are similar in vitro. Elsevier 2018-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6334862/ /pubmed/30675560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2017.11.008 Text en © 2017 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele
Okoroha, Kelechi R.
Oravec, Daniel J.
Peltz, Cathryn D.
Yeni, Yener N.
Muh, Stephanie J.
A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
title A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
title_full A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
title_fullStr A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
title_short A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
title_sort biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6334862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30675560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2017.11.008
work_keys_str_mv AT buraimohmorenikejiayodele abiomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT okorohakelechir abiomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT oravecdanielj abiomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT peltzcathrynd abiomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT yeniyenern abiomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT muhstephaniej abiomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT buraimohmorenikejiayodele biomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT okorohakelechir biomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT oravecdanielj biomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT peltzcathrynd biomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT yeniyenern biomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel
AT muhstephaniej biomechanicalcomparisonofsubscapularisrepairtechniquesintotalshoulderarthroplastylessertuberosityosteotomyversussubscapularispeel