Ulaş ONAY, Sercan AKPINAR, Rahmi Can AKGÜN, BEDİ CENK BALÇIK, İsmail Cengiz TUNCAY

Comparison of repair techniques in small and medium-sized rotator cuff tears in cadaveric sheep shoulders

Amaç: Bu çalışmada farklı uzunluktaki rotator manşet yırtıklarında yeni düğümsüz tek sıralı ve çift sıralı dikiş ankor teknikleri ile geleneksel transosseöz dikiş teknikleri ile karşılaştırıldı. Çalışma planı: Elli altı kadavra koyun omuzunda, tek sıralı düğümsüz ankor tekniği ile onarılan 1 cm’lik supraspinatus manşet yırtıkları ve çift sıralı düğümsüz ankor tekniği ile onarılan 3 cm’lik supraspinatus ve infraspinatus rotator manşet yırtıkları geleneksel transosseöz dikiş teknikleri ve kontrol grupları ile karşılaştırıldı. Onarılan tendonlar, Instron 8874 cihazına bağlanarak 2.5 kgN yük hücresi kullanılarak 5mm/dk statik hız ile yapılan onarım kopana dek çekildi. Bulgular: İstatistiksel olarak karşılaştırıldığı zaman 1 cm’lik transosseöz grubunun 1 cm’lik kontrol grubuna göre (p=0.021, p

Kadavra koyun omuzlarında küçük ve orta boy rotator manşet yırtıklarında yırtık boyutu ile dikiş tekniğinin karşılaştırılması

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare new knotless single-row and double-row suture anchor techniques with traditional transosseous suture techniques for different sized rotator cuff tears in an animal model. Methods: The study included 56 cadaveric sheep shoulders. Supraspinatus cuff tears of 1 cm repaired with new knotless single-row suture anchor technique and supraspinatus and infraspinatus rotator cuff tears of 3 cm repaired with double-row suture anchor technique were compared to traditional transosseous suture techniques and control groups. The repaired tendons were loaded with 5 mm/min static velocity with 2.5 kgN load cell in Instron 8874 machine until the repair failure. Results: The 1 cm transosseous group was statistically superior to 1 cm control group (p=0.021, p<0.05) and the 3 cm SpeedBridge group was statistically superior to the 1 cm SpeedFix group (p=0.012, p<0.05). The differences between the other groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion: No significant difference was found between the new knotless suture anchor techniques and traditional transosseous suture techniques

___

1. Cofield RH. Rotator cuff disease of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985;67:974-9.
2. Cole BJ, ElAttrache NS, Anbari A. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: an anatomic and biomechanical rationale for different suture-anchor repair configurations. Arthroscopy 2007;23: 662-9.
3. Gerber C, Schneeberger AG, Beck M, Schlegel U. Mechanical strength of repairs of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994;76:371-80.
4. Gazielly DF, Gleyze P, Montagnon C. Functional and anatomical results after rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;(304):43-53.
5. Mansat P, Cofield RH, Kersten TE, Rowland CM. Complications of rotator cuff re-pair. Orthop Clin North Am 1997;28:205-13.
6. Harryman DT 2nd, Mack LA, Wang KY, Jackins SE, Richardson ML, Matsen FA 3rd. Repairs of rotator cuff. Correlation of functional results with integrity of the cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:982-9.
7. Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and re-pair integrity of completely arthro- scopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:219-24.
8. Cummins CA, Appleyard RC, Strickland S, Haen PS, Chen S, Murrell GA. Rotator cuff repair: an ex vivo analysis of suture anchor repair techniques on initial load to failure. Arthroscopy 2005;21:1236-41.
9. Scheibel MT, Habermeyer P. A modified Mason-Allen tech- nique for rotator cuff re-pair using suture anchors. Arthroscopy 2003;19:330-3.
10. Kim DH, Elattrache NS, Tibone JE, Jun BJ, DeLaMora SN, Kvitne RS, et al. Biome-chanical comparison of a single-row versus double-row suture anchor technique for rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 2006;34:407-14.
11. Ma CB, Comerford L, Wilson J, Puttlitz CM. Biomechanical evaluation of arthro-scopic rotator cuff repairs: double-row compared with single-row fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88:403-10.
12. Demirhan M, Atalar AC, Kilicoglu O. Primary fixation strength of rotator cuff repair techniques: a comparative study. Arthroscopy 2003;19:572-6.
13. Ozbaydar M, Elhassan B, Esenyel C, Atalar A, Bozdag E, Sunbuloglu E, et al. A com-parison of single- versus double- row suture anchor techniques in a simulated repair of the rota- tor cuff: an experimental study in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1386-91.
14. Burkhart SS, Johnson TC, Wirth MA, Athanasiou KA. Cyclic loading of transosseous rotator cuff repairs: tension overload as a possible cause of failure. Arthroscopy 1997;13:172-6.
15. Cummins CA, Murrell GA. Mode of failure for rotator cuff repair with suture anchors identified at revision surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:128-33.
16. Spang JT, Buchmann S, Brucker PU, Kouloumentas P, Obst T, Schröder M, et al. A biomechanical comparison of 2 tran- sosseous-equivalent double-row rotator cuff repair techniques using bioabsorbable anchor: cyclic loading and failure behav- ior. Arthro-scopy 2009;25:872-9.
17. Saridakis P, Jones G. Outcomes of single-row and double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:732-42.
18. Aydin N, Kocaoglu B, Guven O. Single-row versus double- row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in small-to medium-sized tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:722-5.