关节镜下缝合锚钉加骨隧道缝合方法修复肩袖损伤

目的 探讨肩关节镜下缝合锚钉加骨隧道缝合方法治疗肩袖损伤的手术方法、技巧和疗效.方法 2007年2月-2009年2月,对32例不同类型的肩袖损伤患者,采用关节镜下缝合锚钉加肱骨大结节骨隧道缝合的方法修复肩袖.其中25例全层撕裂,5例滑囊侧部分撕裂,2例关节侧部分撕裂.16例发生于优势侧.术前均拍摄肩关节正位、肩袖出口位X线片,其中11例行MRI检查,21例行MRA检查.全部患者均行肩峰成形与肩峰下滑囊切除,肩袖修复采用单排锚钉固定加经骨隧道穿线缝合18例、双排锚钉加经骨隧道穿线固定14例.按照UCLA肩关节评分标准进行术前和术后功能评估.结果 32例患者获得3～23个月的随访,平均13.4个月.按照UCLA肩关节评分:术前平均为13.3分,术后为33.1分;其中优23例,良9例.术后21例疼痛完全消失,5例偶感轻微疼痛或不适,6例剧烈运动或特殊动作疼痛.24例肩关节活动完全正常.主动前屈及外展角度>150°26例,90°～120°6例.术后前屈及外展肌力M_5 25例,M_47例.所有患者最终对手术效果满意.结论 缝合锚钉加骨隧道穿线缝合是修复肩袖撕裂较好的方法,该技术固定牢靠、保证了肩袖-骨的正常愈合,特别适用于骨质疏松或翻修的病例,值得推广.     

单排和双排肩袖缝合桥力学研究

目的:从生物力学的角度比较分析单排带线锚钉固定修复肩袖损伤和双排缝合桥固定修复肩袖损伤的力学差异。方法:将健康成年人肩关节的CT扫描数据依次导入Mimics,Geomagics和Hypermesh中进行两种修复模型的逆向重建、材料赋属和网格划分等操作,并设计出冈上肌撕裂的情况,处理完毕后将其导入ABAQUS软件中对其施加载荷与边界条件,模拟锚钉固定修复完成后肩关节前屈15°、30°,内旋15°、30°这4种工况。比较两种修复模型在4种工况下肩袖冈上肌,带线锚钉的应力变化。结果:两种前屈工况下双排缝合桥固定模型中冈上肌所受应力值分别比单排固定修复模型中冈上肌所受应力值小8.3%和12%。两种内旋工况下,双排缝合桥固定模型中冈上肌所受应力值分别比单排固定修复模型中冈上肌所受应力值小47%和48%。结论:双排4枚锚钉之间的“负荷共享”效应使应力分布更为分散,增大了冈上肌与肱骨之间的接触面积,减小了锚钉的受力,避免了严重的应力集中现象,从生物力学角度解释了双排缝合桥固定方法的优势。     

关节镜下修复巨大肩袖撕裂12例疗效分析

目的分析肩关节镜下双排锚钉缝合固定法修复巨大肩袖撕裂的临床疗效。方法采用肩关节镜下双排锚钉缝合固定法修复巨大肩袖撕裂12例。结果 12例均获得随访12个月,术前、术后12个月的Constant-Merly评分为40.3、86.4分,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;UCLA评分为10.6、28.3分,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论应用肩关节镜下双排锚钉缝合固定法修复巨大肩袖撕裂可以取得较好的短期疗效,是一种合理、有效的治疗方法。     

关节镜下双排固定治疗肩袖损伤

目的 观察关节镜下单排、双排固定治疗肩袖损伤的近期效果. 方法 对8例肩袖损伤采用单排固定,7例肩袖损伤进行双排固定,观察术后功能恢复情况,进行UCLA评分. 结果 双排固定术后恢复时间短,功能恢复快,UCLA评分明显优于单排固定.单排固定组2例锚钉拔出,行再次手术固定;2例术后锻炼时出现疼痛和术前症状,再次手术时发现缝合线断裂,予再次固定. 结论 肩袖损伤的关节镜下双排固定效果明显优于单排固定,双排固定不仅增加了固定强度,同时使肩袖肌腱断端与肱骨大结节的接触面积大大增加,更有利于腱骨愈合.     

关节镜下双锚钉单排缝合治疗中型肩袖撕裂的疗效分析

目的探讨关节镜下2枚带线锚钉单排缝合修复治疗中型肩袖撕裂的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2014-01—2015-12采用关节镜下2枚带线锚钉单排缝合治疗的23例中型肩袖撕裂。结果23例均获得(17.9±5.6)个月随访。末次随访时肩关节疼痛VAS评分较术前明显降低,Constant-Murley及UCLA评分明显增加,肩关节主动前屈上举、外展上举、90°外展位外旋及90°外展位内旋活动度、患侧肩关节外展肌力均明显恢复,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论关节镜下2枚带线锚钉单排缝合修复中型肩袖撕裂术后患肩疼痛明显减轻、功能提高显著,疗效可靠。     

骨质疏松对肩袖损伤修复的影响研究进展

老年人群因合并有不同程度的骨质疏松,肩袖损伤修复再撕裂率高。为解决这一难题,手术医师尝试通过增加锚钉初始固定强度、改变局部骨质情况等方法来降低这类患者肩袖损伤的再撕裂率。组织工程学的快速发展也使生长因子的辅助应用成为可能。但在目前的临床工作中,合并有骨质疏松的肩袖损伤修复仍然是临床工作者面临的一个巨大挑战。如何更好地增加锚钉固定强度,改善腱骨愈合微环境,降低肩袖再撕裂率成为了近年来的研究热点。本文从骨质疏松与肩袖损伤的关系、骨质疏松对肩袖腱骨愈合的影响及目前采用的减少骨质疏松对腱骨愈合的不同方法3个方面进行综述,以便更好地指导临床治疗,提高患者的手术效果及术后满意率。     

肩关节脱位合并肩袖与Bankart损伤的诊治

目的 探讨关节镜下修复肩关节前脱位合并肩袖与Bankart损伤的疗效.方法 1999年9月至2007年7月收治16例肩关节脱位合并肩袖与Bankart损伤患者,男14例,女2例;左肩6例,右肩10例.交通伤8例,运动伤4例,牵拉伤4例.受伤至手术时间平均4.5个月(1.5～11.0个月).肩关节x线片显示肩盂撕脱骨折3例.16例患者肩关节核磁共振造影显示肩袖与Bankart损伤.关节镜探查发现肩袖于肱骨大结节处撕脱伴肩袖挛缩12例.采用关节镜下松解、缝合锚钉和骨锚钉同定缝合9例;因肩袖挛缩明显,进行关节镜与小切口辅助下肩袖缝合固定术3例;肩衲组织因牵拉松弛抬肩无力,采用等离子刀皱缩和肩袖缝合紧缩术4例.Bankart损伤采用关节镜下可吸收Bankart钉固定3例,钛合金缝合锚钉固定3例,关节镜下直接缝合修补盂唇3例,骨锚钉加会属锚钉固定7例.结果 16例患者术后获平均16.5个月(7～34个月)随访.肩关节稳定,肩外展和上举功能恢复正常12例,术后肩关节外展、抬举活动轻度受限2例,前伸活动疼痛2例.金属锚钉拔出再手术2例.采用美国加州洛杉矶大学UCLA肩关节功能评分:术前平均(21.5±5.5)分;术后平均(32.4±5.6)分,优12例,良4例.结论 肩关节脱位合并肩袖与Bankart损伤核磁共振造影有助于诊断;肩袖挛缩者应进行充分松解,无张力缝合固定有利于肩袖愈合;异体骨锚钉修复肩袖与Bankart损伤,生物固定、费用低廉,具有重要的价值.     

关节镜下单排与双排缝合桥修复技术治疗老年肩袖损伤的对照研究

目的关节镜下采取双排与单排缝合桥修复术治疗老年肩袖损伤的效果对比分析。 方法前瞻性收集简阳市人民医院2016年1月至2018年2月期间收治的118例老年肩袖损伤病患者,按随机数字表法分为对照组（关节镜下行单排锚钉固定）与观察组（关节镜下行双排缝合桥修复术）,两组各59例,比较两组不同程度损伤患者手术前后ASES评分、Constant-Murley评分、UCLA评分;并对比两组术后再撕裂发生率。 结果治疗前两组四种撕裂程度Constant-Murley、UCLA、ASES评分差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）;治疗后两组比较,只有轻度撕裂三种评分差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）,而巨大、重度、中度撕裂的三种评分两组间差异均具有统计学意义（P<0.05）,观察组显著优于对照组。对照组再撕裂发生率17/59（28.81%）显著高于观察组6/59（10.17%）（χ²=6.535,P=0.011）。 结论老年肩袖损伤采取双排与单排缝合桥术均可行,但双排缝合桥术应用范围较为广泛,且对于患者巨大、重度、中度撕裂改善效果更佳。     

双排线桥混合穿骨缝合与双排线桥带线锚钉治疗中等大小肩袖撕裂的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的 比较双排线桥混合穿骨缝合与双排线桥带线锚钉治疗中等大小肩袖撕裂的临床疗效.方法 选取2018年10月～2020年2月我科82例肩袖中等大小全层撕裂,随机分为2组:观察组(双排线桥混合穿骨缝合)与对照组(双排线桥带线锚钉),比较2组患者术前(T0)及术后2周(T1)、6周(T2)、3个月(T3)、6个月(T4)、1...     

双排缝合锚钉治疗老年陈旧性肱骨大结节撕脱骨折

目的探讨应用缝合锚钉治疗老年陈旧性肱骨大结节撕脱骨折的临床疗效。方法将近排缝合锚钉置入肱骨断裂面与冈上肌的最近边缘,解剖学缝合骨块与冈上肌交界的肩袖止点。于肱骨断裂面的远端置入远排缝合锚钉,将其尾线与近排锚钉尾线打结。结果 5例获随访8~24个月,骨折块得到解剖学复位及骨性愈合。结论采用双排缝合锚钉治疗老年陈旧性肱骨大结节撕裂骨折可有效地限制冈上肌对骨块的牵拉,固定牢靠,且利于早期恢复锻炼,疗效佳。     

Einzelreihe, Doppelreihe oder transoss?re Refixation

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is an established treatment option for rotator cuff tears. Clinical results are very good regardless of the repair technique. Critical analysis of repair integrity showed a high retear rate for larger tears especially in the earlier series. Apart from biological factors e.g., age, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff, studies have shown biomechanical deficiencies of single-row repair. Double-row repair with a medial and lateral row of suture anchors was developed as an improvement over single-row repair and showed superior biomechanical properties in most of the recent literature. Clinical results reveal a tendency towards better healing rates compared with single-row repair without further improvement of the clinical result. Transosseous-equivalent repair, which was developed as an alternative to the classic double-row repair, has not clearly shown the same biomechanical superiority or significantly higher healing rates compared to single-row repair.     

Editorial Commentary: Does a Medialized Repair Allow Single-Row to Outperform Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair?

The optimal surgical technique for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair remains controversial, with advantages and disadvantages to each of the most commonly used methods. The pattern as well as number of suture anchors relative to the footprint has been one of the most common sources of debate, with proponents and arguments for both single- and double-row arrangements. Although double-row techniques have been shown to be biomechanically superior and to improve footprint coverage, evidence has been mixed as to whether they are clinically superior, especially in small- and medium-sized tears. Whereas historically, single-row repairs have aimed to restore pre-tear tendon tension, there recently has been interest in a medialized single-row technique to reduce repair tension. Advantages of this technique include a reduced number of anchors and thus a reduced cost, an efficient technique, and a potential reduction in tension, which could improve healing rates. Disadvantages of this technique include a reduced tendon-to-bone area of contact, which may lead to higher rates of incomplete healing.     

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Subscapularis Repair: Bridging Successful Tendon Healing and Improved Patient Outcomes

Open repair has been regarded as the gold standard for the treatment of subscapularis tendon tears. However, recent studies on newer arthroscopic techniques and published results of arthroscopic repair have shown promising results. As such, there exists a growing interest in understanding the best fixation technique to obtain successful functional and patient-reported clinical outcomes. While the literature shows superior outcomes after double-row repair for posterosuperior rotator cuff tears compared with single-row repair, the evidence is inconclusive for subscapularis tears. We believe that arthroscopic double-row transosseous equivalent repair of full-thickness subscapularis tears leads to superior clinical outcomes with higher healing rates and will become the standard of care in the future.     

Arthroscopic bone tunnel augmentation for rotator cuff repair

Transosseous repair of the rotator cuff has been shown to recreate the anatomic rotator cuff footprint in a secure and cost-efficient manner. However, the potential for sutures cutting through bone remains a concern with this strategy. Devices have been used successfully during open transosseous rotator cuff repair to augment the bone tunnels, potentially avoiding suture cut-out through the weak bone of the greater tuberosity. Recently, arthroscopic transosseous fixation of rotator cuff tears has become an alternative to arthroscopic suture anchor and open transosseous techniques. This method is expected to have the same potential pitfalls at the bone-suture interface as the open technique. The authors describe a technique for rotator cuff repair using a secure method of arthroscopic bone tunnel augmentation.     

Knotless anatomic double-layer double-row rotator cuff repair: a novel technique re-establishing footprint and shape of full-thickness tears

The standard technique for restoring footprint after full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff includes double-row or transosseous-equivalent techniques. However, the anatomically typical bird’s beak shape and profile of tendon insertion may not be originally restored and biomechanics may be altered. In this report, the authors describe a technique that involves creating two intratendinous stitches at different levels of the torn tendon. The first passes through the bursal-side layer, the second stitch through the joint-side layer. Both stitches may be performed in mattress suture configuration. The anchorage is performed by knotless anchors in order to avoid knots lying within the insertion area. The footprint is restored first medially then laterally by the use of double-row principles. The joint-side suture is anchored within the medially placed anchor. The bursal-side suture is anchored by a laterally placed anchor. The anatomic insertion and restoration of the shape and profile may be enabled by the described double-layer suture technique. Using a double-layer double-row repair may potentially improve functional results of rotator cuff repair constructs.     

Editorial Commentary: Biology and Biomechanics Must Be Carefully Balanced for a Durable Rotator Cuff Repair

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair strategies have evolved over 3 decades, but suture anchor design, anchor configuration, and stitches have been largely driven by repair biomechanics. In recent years there has been a shift toward repair strategies that enhance the biology of tendon repair. Double-row and transosseous equivalent suture anchor repair constructs demonstrate excellent time zero mechanical properties, but the resulting increased repair tension and tendon compression may compromise tendon healing. Modern single-row repairs employing medialized triple-loaded suture anchors, simple stitches, and lateral marrow venting avoid some of the problems associated with double-row repairs and demonstrate excellent short-term healing and clinical results. The most robust repair fails if the tendon does not heal. Biology and biomechanics must be carefully balanced.     

Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomized clinical study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with single-row and double-row techniques because research has demonstrated the superiority of double-row repair from a biological and mechanical point of view but there is no evidence of clinical superiority.

Methods

A total of 160 patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear underwent arthroscopic repair with suture anchors. They were randomised into two groups of 80 patients according to the repair technique: single-row (group 1) and double-row (group 2). Results were evaluated by use of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant questionnaires, the Shoulder Strength Index (SSI) and range of motion. Follow-up time was two years. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were performed on each shoulder preoperatively and two years after repair.

Results

One hundred per cent of the patients were followed up. All measurements showed significant improvement compared with the preoperative status. The UCLA score showed significant improvement in group 2. In over 30-mm tears UCLA and ASES showed significant differences. SSI showed significant improvement in group 2. Range of motion showed significant improvements in flexion and abduction in group 2. In under 30-mm tears group 2 showed also significant improvement in internal and external rotation. In MRI studies there were no significant differences.

Conclusions

At two years follow-up the double-row repair technique showed a significant difference in clinical outcome compared with single-row repair and this was even more significative in over 30-mm tears. No MRI differences were observed.     

A biomechanical comparison of single and double-row fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND: The optimal method for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is not yet known. The hypothesis of the present study was that a double-row repair would demonstrate superior static and cyclic mechanical behavior when compared with a single-row repair. The specific aims were to measure gap formation at the bone-tendon interface under static creep loading and the ultimate strength and mode of failure of both methods of repair under cyclic loading. METHODS: A standardized tear of the supraspinatus tendon was created in sixteen fresh cadaveric shoulders. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs were performed with use of either a double-row technique (eight specimens) or a single-row technique (eight specimens) with nonabsorbable sutures that were double-loaded on a titanium suture anchor. The repairs were loaded statically for one hour, and the gap formation was measured. Cyclic loading to failure was then performed. RESULTS: Gap formation during static loading was significantly greater in the single-row group than in the double-row group (mean and standard deviation, 5.0 +/- 1.2 mm compared with 3.8 +/- 1.4 mm; p < 0.05). Under cyclic loading, the double-row repairs failed at a mean of 320 +/- 96.9 N whereas the single-row repairs failed at a mean of 224 +/- 147.9 N (p = 0.058). Three single-row repairs and three double-row repairs failed as a result of suture cut-through. Four single-row repairs and one double-row repair failed as a result of anchor or suture failure. The remaining five repairs did not fail, and a midsubstance tear of the tendon occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Although more technically demanding, the double-row technique demonstrates superior resistance to gap formation under static loading as compared with the single-row technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A double-row reconstruction of the supraspinatus tendon insertion may provide a more reliable construct than a single-row repair and could be used as an alternative to open reconstruction for the treatment of isolated tears.     

Rotator cuff repair: the effect of double-row fixation on three-dimensional repair site

There is a high rate of recurrent and residual tears after rotator cuff repair surgery. Recent cadaveric studies have provided surgeons with new knowledge about the anatomy of the supraspinatus tendon insertion. Traditional repair techniques fail to reproduce the area of the supraspinatus insertion, or footprint, on the greater tuberosity anatomically. Double-row suture anchor (DRSA) fixation is a new technique that has been developed to restore the supraspinatus footprint better. In this study, 3-dimensional mapping was used to determine the area of the footprint recreated with 3 different repair methods: a transosseous simple suture technique, fixation with a single row of suture anchors, and DRSA fixation. The DRSA fixation technique consistently reproduced 100% of the original supraspinatus footprint, whereas the single-row suture anchor fixation and transosseous simple suture techniques reproduced only 46% and 71% of the insertion site, respectively. Therefore, the footprint area of the DRSA fixation technique was significantly larger (P < .05) than that of the other 2 techniques. Furthermore, double-row fixation may provide a tendon-bone interface better suited for biologic healing and restoring normal anatomy.     

Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff

Recently, there has been an increased interest in the normal anatomy of the rotator cuff footprint and the re-establishment of the footprint during rotator cuff repair. Single-row suture anchor techniques have been criticized because of their inability to restore the normal medial-to-lateral width of the rotator cuff footprint. In this report, the authors describe a double-row technique for rotator cuff repair that re-establishes the normal rotator cuff footprint, increases the contact area for healing, and may potentially improve clinical results.