» Articles » PMID: 16452754

Biomechanical Evaluation of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: Double-row Compared with Single-row Fixation

Overview
Date 2006 Feb 3
PMID 16452754
Citations 79
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Recent studies have shown that arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs can have higher rates of failure than do open repairs. Current methods of rotator cuff repair have been limited to single-row fixation of simple and horizontal stitches, which is very different from open repairs. The objective of this study was to compare the initial cyclic loading and load-to-failure properties of double-row fixation with those of three commonly used single-row techniques.

Methods: Ten paired human supraspinatus tendons were split in half, yielding four tendons per cadaver. The bone mineral content at the greater tuberosity was assessed. Four stitch configurations (two-simple, massive cuff, arthroscopic Mason-Allen, and double-row fixation) were randomized and tested on each set of tendons. Specimens were cyclically loaded between 5 and 100 N at 0.25 Hz for fifty cycles and then loaded to failure under displacement control at 1 mm/sec. Conditioning elongation, peak-to-peak elongation, ultimate tensile load, and stiffness were measured with use of a three-dimensional tracking system and compared, and the failure type (suture or anchor pull-out) was recorded.

Results: No significant differences were found among the stitches with respect to conditioning elongation. The mean peak-to-peak elongation (and standard error of the mean) was significantly lower for the massive cuff (1.1 +/- 0.1 mm) and double-row stitches (1.1 +/- 0.1 mm) than for the arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitch (1.5 +/- 0.2 mm) (p < 0.05). The ultimate tensile load was significantly higher for double-row fixation (287 +/- 24 N) than for all of the single-row fixations (p < 0.05). Additionally, the massive cuff stitch (250 +/- 21 N) was found to have a significantly higher ultimate tensile load than the two-simple (191 +/- 18 N) and arthroscopic Mason-Allen (212 +/- 21 N) stitches (p < 0.05). No significant differences in stiffness were found among the stitches. Failure mechanisms were similar for all stitches. Rotator cuff repairs in the anterior half of the greater tuberosity had a significantly lower peak-to-peak elongation and higher ultimate tensile strength than did repairs on the posterior half.

Conclusions: In this in vitro cadaver study, double-row fixation had a significantly higher ultimate tensile load than the three types of single-row fixation stitches. Of the single-row fixations, the massive cuff stitch had cyclic and load-to-failure characteristics similar to the double-row fixation. Anterior repairs of the supraspinatus tendon had significantly stronger biomechanical behavior than posterior repairs.

Citing Articles

Factors affecting healing of rotator cuff repairs: microfracture of the greater tuberosity.

Son G, Kim M Clin Shoulder Elb. 2024; 27(4):412-418.

PMID: 39523784 PMC: 11615469. DOI: 10.5397/cise.2024.00290.


Continuous Vertical Inside-Out Versus Traditional Vertical Inside-Out Meniscal Repair: A Biomechanical Comparison.

de Faria J, Santos A, Pavao D, Radulski M, Leal A, More A Orthop J Sports Med. 2023; 11(11):23259671231209951.

PMID: 38021309 PMC: 10644761. DOI: 10.1177/23259671231209951.


Comparison of Arthroscopic Single-row and Double-row Repair for Rotator Cuff Injuries With Different Tear Sizes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Gu Z, Wu S, Yang Y, Ren T, Zhang K Orthop J Sports Med. 2023; 11(8):23259671231180854.

PMID: 37655249 PMC: 10467404. DOI: 10.1177/23259671231180854.


Current concepts in the evolution of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Tokish J, Hawkins R JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2023; 1(2):75-83.

PMID: 37588146 PMC: 10426701. DOI: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2021.01.004.


Treatment of Achilles insertional tendinopathy: our surgical procedure and medium-term results.

Lugani G, Santandrea A, Mercurio D, Puddu L, Silvestri J, Cortese F Acta Biomed. 2023; 94(2):e2023053.

PMID: 37092637 PMC: 10210554. DOI: 10.23750/abm.v94i2.13834.