异体骨锚钉双排固定法修复肩袖损伤

目的 探讨异体皮质骨锚钉双排固定法修复肩袖损伤的价值.方法 关节镜监视下,采用同种异体皮质骨锚钉双排同定法修复肩袖损伤16例.其中男10例,女6例;年龄32～58岁,平均44岁.按Bigliani肩袖损伤分类法,小撕裂6例,中度撕裂8例,大撕裂2例.关节镜下肩袖清理和肩峰成形后,采用带线异体骨锚钉植入肱骨大结节肩袖附着处,双根缝线垂直褥式缝合冈上肌腱,分别打结固定后,将缝线交叉牵引到在肱骨大结节预制的骨道处,将缝线穿入另一个骨锚钉孔内并击入骨道内.4根缝线交叉呈网状覆盖撕裂的冈上肌腱由骨锚钉固定.根据撕裂创面大小决定骨锚钉植入数量.结果 所有患者术后得到随访,时间6～23个月,平均14个月.术后疼痛症状均消失,肩关节功能采用美国加州洛杉矶大学(UCLA)功能评分标准评估,术前(20.5±5.6)分,术后(33.4±5.8)分.优10例,良5例,可1例.术后肩关节稳定性良好,无锚钉拔出和损伤复发.结论 异体骨锚钉双排同定法修复肩袖损伤,镜下手术操作方便,骨锚钉嵌入固定牢靠,增加肩袖组织与骨创面的接触面积,有利于肩袖愈合.骨锚钉生物固定,无异物存留,价格低廉.     

关节镜下单排固定与双排固定治疗肩袖撕裂疗效比较Meta分析

目的采用Meta分析法对关节镜下单排固定与双排固定治疗肩袖撕裂的疗效进行对比,为其广泛的临床应用提供循证证据。方法检索Pub Med、Springer Link、EMBASE、the Cochrane Library、Medline、Science Direct、中国知识资源总库、万方数据库、维普数据库,检索时间段为1970年1月~2014年6月,收集关节镜下单排固定与双排固定治疗肩袖撕裂疗效对比的相关文献,按纳入与排除标准筛选文献并对纳入文献进行质量评价,采用Rev Man5.2软件进行分析。结果共纳入13篇文献,病例数合计为840例,其中关节镜下单排固定组427例,双排固定组413例。结果显示在主要观察指标中,关节镜下单排固定术后肩袖再撕裂的风险高于双排固定组(OR=2.31,95%CI:[1.57,3.39],P0.001),单排固定组术后ASES(the American shoulder and elbow surgeons scores)评分(MD=-0.85,95%CI:[-1.66,-0.03],P=0.04)及术后UCLA(the University of California,Los Angeles score)评分(MD=-0.85,95%CI:[-1.27,-0.20],P=0.007)分别低于双排固定组术后评分,而术后Constant评分及WORC评分两组间差异无统计学意义;在次要观察指标分析中,双排固定组在前屈活动度、肩关节外展、肩关节内旋方面优于单排固定组(P0.05),在术后患者满意度、外旋活动度、肩关节外旋等指标两组之间无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论关节镜下双排固定治疗肩袖撕裂,术后发生肩袖再次撕裂的风险低于单排固定,在术后ASES评分、UCLA评分、前屈活动度、肩关节外展、肩关节内旋等方面优于单排固定,尚无证据表明两组在Constant评分、WORC评分、术后患者满意度、内旋活动度、外旋活动度、肩关节外旋方面有明显差异。     

关节镜下单排与缝线桥技术修复中型肩袖撕裂——临床与核磁共振评价

目的:比较评估关节镜下单排与缝线桥技术修复中型肩袖撕裂的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析我科于2014年7月至2015年6月收治的55例中型肩袖撕裂患者,所有患者由同一医生于关节镜下以缝线锚钉单排(n=29)或缝线桥(n=26)技术修复撕裂肩袖。记录并比较术前及末次随访时的肩关节功能评分:美国肩肘外科医师协会评分(ASES评分)、美国加州大学洛杉矶分校肩关节评分(UCLA评分)和复旦大学肩关节评分(FUSS评分),以及疼痛视觉量表评分(VAS评分)和肩关节活动度(前屈、外展、体侧外旋)。末次随访时拍摄MRI以评估缝合肩袖的愈合情况。结果:50例患者获得随访,其中缝线桥组24例,单排组26例。两组间年龄、性别、随访时间、患侧差异无统计学意义。两组患者间术前功能评分(ASES,UCLA,FUSS)、VAS评分以及肩关节活动度(前屈,外展,体侧外旋)差异无统计学意义。术后两组患者各项指标均得到明显改善,但两组间差异无统计学意义。MRI检查发现两组均无患者出现再撕裂,缝线桥组sugayaⅠ型患者较单排组比例更高(83.3%vs 61.5%),但差异无统计学意义。结论:关节镜下缝线桥技术治疗中型肩袖撕裂早期结果优良,安全有效,但相比传统单排技术,未显示出明显优势,MRI结果虽提示肩袖愈合情况可能更优,远期疗效仍有待深入研究。     

关节镜下肩袖修补联合粘连松解术治疗肩袖撕裂合并肩关节僵硬疗效分析

目的:探讨关节镜下肩关节囊粘连松解联合肩袖修补术治疗肩袖撕裂合并肩关节僵硬患者的疗效及其术后转归。方法:回顾性分析2011年1月~2014年4月间我科收治的随访资料完整的中小型肩袖损伤患者。共43例纳入研究,其中15例合并肩关节僵硬。对僵硬组患者,先在关节镜下行肩关节囊粘连松解,术中活动肩关节证实肩关节活动度恢复良好。非僵硬组患者仅进行单纯的盂肱关节镜检查及必要的关节内清理。所有患者均根据撕裂口大小,采用1~3枚5.0 Twinfix锚钉(美国Smith&Nephew公司)单排缝合固定肩袖。僵硬组有7例、非僵硬组有8例进行了肱二头肌长头腱单纯切断或固定术。所有病例术后均给予指导康复训练。术后平均随访27.1±4.2(15~38)个月,记录并比较术前,术后1、2、3、6、12个月及末次随访时的肩痛VAS评分,术后2、3、6、12个月及末次随访时肩关节被动活动度,术后6、12个月及末次随访时的肌力,以及术前、术后1年及末次随访UCLA评分,评估患者肩关节术后康复进程及手术疗效。结果:1)无僵硬组患者及僵硬组患者术后疼痛均有明显缓解,但术后1、2个月的疼痛VAS评分无僵硬组显著优于僵硬组(P<0.05),直到术后3个月时两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2)肩袖修补术后无僵硬组患者肩关节被动活动度与术前相比无显著差异。僵硬组被动活动度较术前有显著改善,其中肩前屈、外展0°位外旋活动度分别于术后3个月、术后6个月有显著改善,与无僵硬组无显著差异(P>0.05);而肩外展、90°外展位外旋、90°外展位内旋活动度直到术后12个月得到充分缓解,与无僵硬组无显著差异(P>0.05)。至末次随访时,僵硬组患者肩关节被动活动度恢复良好,未再出现关节活动度降低。3)无僵硬组术后肌力恢复良好。僵硬组患者肩前屈、外展肌力术后6个月达到健侧水平,与无僵硬组无显著差异(P>0.05);僵硬组肩外旋肌力术后12个月才达到健侧水平,与无僵硬组相比无显著差异(P>0.05)。4)末次随访UCLA评分,无僵硬组患者为33.3±3.3分,僵硬组患者为33.4±3.2分。患者肩关节功能总体恢复良好,二者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:肩关节镜下关节囊粘连松解联合肩袖修补术治疗肩袖撕裂合并关节僵硬患者,术后半年内的肩关节功能康复进程较未合并僵硬的肩袖撕裂患者慢,但手术治疗1年后两组患者疼痛VAS评分、肩关节被动活动度、肌力以及肩关节功能无明显差异,该联合术式可获得良好的疗效。     

肩袖撕裂双排缝合技术与缝线桥技术的疗效对比分析

背景:肩袖损伤是中老年人常见的肩关节疾患。随着关节镜技术水平的提高,越来越多的肩袖损伤患者得到了治疗:肩关节镜下行肩袖破裂修补术。但很少有对于缝线桥和经典双排术后疗效的对比研究。目的:本次回顾性研究针对经典双排和缝线桥技术术后疗效进行分析,包括临床疗效、再撕裂率以及患者满意度的对比。方法:选取本治疗组2014年10月至2015年10月间诊断为肩袖全层撕裂的患者40例:经典双排缝合20例,缝线桥技术20例。对每组患者治疗前后患肩的临床及影像学检查进行评估(包括UCLA、ASES、Constant、VAS疼痛评分,关节活动度及MRI),对比分析患者术后疗效、再撕裂率、患者的满意度以及手术时间和住院费用。结果:在最后一次随访(术后6个月)时,两组的UCLA、ASES以及Constant评分较术前都有显著提高,双排缝合组分别达到了33.1、89.4、83.5,缝线桥组分别为31.85、84.6、82.4,两组患者的这三项指标较术前均具有统计学意义(P<0.001),但两组间术后UCLA、ASES以及Con-stant评分却不具有显著差异(P值分别为0.295、0.08和0.651)。两组患者术后的关节活动度较术前也有显著改善(双排缝合组和缝线桥组P值均<0.001),但两组间术后对比同样不具有统计学意义(前屈和外展的P值分别为0.986和0.323)。两组患者的VAS疼痛评分均较术前显著降低,双排缝合组和缝线桥组分别降到了2.15和1.85(P值均<0.001),但两组间差异也无显著性(P=0.389)。在满意度方面,大部分患者均选择了"非常满意",少数患者选择"一般":双排缝合组2位、缝线桥组1位。术后MRI显示3位患者出现了再撕裂(双排缝合组2位,缝线桥组1位)。两组的手术时间分别为:双排缝合组107(75~145)min;缝线桥组92(65~125)min。住院总费用分别为:双排缝合组42980元,缝线桥组53908元。结论:肩袖撕裂行双排缝合或缝线桥技术均能获得良好疗效,两者的术后评估不存在显著差异。     

关节镜下缝合桥技术与双排缝合技术治疗肩袖部分损伤21例回顾性研究

目的:回顾性研究关节镜下缝合桥技术与双排缝合技术治疗肩袖部分损伤的临床效果。方法:2013年9月~2014年9月,21例肩袖部分损伤患者(滑囊侧损伤11例,腱内损伤10例)转变为完全性肩袖损伤,然后行关节镜下肩袖缝合治疗,10例应用缝合桥技术,11例应用双排缝合技术。术前均行肩关节X线片与MRI检查,术前与术后均行疼痛目测评分(pain visual analog scale,PVAS)及加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校(University of California Los Angeles,UCLA)标准评分与Constant评分。术后平均随访18.7个月(12~25个月)。结果:21例患者均获得随访。缝合桥组:PVAS评分由术前的5.3±1.3降低到术后的0.7±0.8(P<0.01),UCLA评分及Constant评分分别由术前16.3±2.9、64.8±7.5提高到术后的32.9±2.5、93.7±6.1(P<0.01);双排缝合组:PVAS评分由术前的4.7±1.7降低到术后的0.6±0.7(P<0.01),UCLA评分及Constant评分分别由术前17.7±2.1、62.7±5.7提高到术后的34.1±1.0、93.8±2.4(P<0.01)。缝合桥组与双排缝合组术后结果无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:滑囊侧损伤与腱内型损伤是两种存在很多共性的部分肩袖损伤,将二者转变为完全性肩袖损伤后行关节镜下缝合治疗效果良好,关节镜下缝合桥技术与双排缝合技术的疗效无显著性差异,双排缝合技术操作更便捷。     

骨性Bankart损伤合并肩袖损伤的病例特点和关节镜治疗策略

目的:探讨肩关节镜下应用带线锚钉技术同期修复骨性Bankart损伤合并肩袖损伤的手术策略和术后疗效。方法:2008年6月至2015年1月共收治18例同时合并骨性Bankant损伤和肩袖损伤的患者,其中女性8例,男性10例,患者平均年龄57.9岁(40~72岁)。患者均有外伤性肩关节前脱位病史,11例急诊复位后因再脱位就医,7例因存在持续肩关节疼痛就医。18例患者均通过MRI结合X线和三维CT确诊同时存在全层肩袖损伤和骨性Bankart损伤。所有患者均于关节镜下一期修复两种损伤,手术中采用带线锚钉先固定骨性Bankart损伤,再用单排锚钉修复撕裂肩袖。结果:18例患者平均随访时间22.5个月(12~38个月)。术后3月、6月随访肩关节前屈上举和体侧外旋活动度较健侧比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后1年两侧活动度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。末次随访时,患侧vs健侧ASES肩关节评分为91.6±6.7分vs 93.6±4.8分,Constant-Murley评分为89.9±6.8分vs 92.0±7.9分,Rowe评分为89.3±7.1 vs 91.1±6.7,两侧比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。末次随访外展肌力双侧无显著性差异,VAS疼痛评分较术前显著改善(1.4±1.1 vs 6.2±1.9)。随访过程中1例患者曾出现半脱位,3例出现术后僵硬,经肌力和功能训练后改善,无感染、再脱位等并发症。结论:肩关节脱位同时存在骨性Bankart损伤和肩袖撕裂时,全关节镜下修复骨性Bankart损伤后再修复肩袖损伤,治疗全面,疗效肯定。     

关节镜下带线铆钉重建后盂唇治疗肩关节后方不稳定

目的:探讨关节镜下带线铆钉重建后盂唇并选择性缝合肩袖间隙治疗肩关节后方不稳的疗效。方法:2012年9月~2015年3月先后共13例肩后向不稳患者,年龄18~36岁,平均年龄27.9岁,在我院行关节镜下带线铆钉重建后盂唇并选择性缝合肩袖间隙术,获得15~31月随访,平均随访时间22.5月。比较手术前后的UCLA肩关节评分、患肩关节外展位外旋角度来评估疗效。结果:手术效果均满意,UCLA肩关节评分术前与术后差异有统计学意义(由术前26.69±1.032提高到术后33.77±2.127,P=0.000),而肩外展位外旋角度术前与术后差异无统计学意义(P=0.906)。结论:关节镜下带线铆钉重建后盂唇并选择性缝合肩袖间隙治疗肩关节后方不稳对恢复肩关节稳定和功能有效。     

全肩关节镜和关节镜下小切口治疗肩袖损伤的疗效及对关节功能恢复的影响

目的 探讨全肩关节镜手术和关节镜下小切口治疗肩袖损伤的疗效及对关节功能恢复的影响。方法 采用前瞻性病例对照研究分析2016年1月—2018年2月中国贵航集团三0二医院骨一科接诊的56例肩袖损伤患者的临床资料,男性31例,女性25例;年龄35～62岁,平均56. 2岁。根据手术方法分为观察组和对照组,各28例。对照组以关节镜下小切口下实施肩袖修复术,观察组以全肩关节镜实施肩袖修复术。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量及住院时间。对所有患者进行为期12～32个月的随访,比较两组术前、术后2个月、6个月及末次随访时VAS评分、美国加州大学肩关节功能评分(UCLA)的变化及临床疗效和并发症情况。结果 观察组手术时间长于对照组[(102. 8±15. 5) min vs.(87. 3±10. 4) min],术中出血量少于对照组[(25. 9±2. 0) m L vs.(40. 0±3. 2) m L](t=6. 029、P 0. 001,t=19. 760,P 0. 001),两组住院时间比较差异无统计学意义[(5. 9±0. 6) d vs.(6. 1±0. 7) d](t=1. 462、P=0. 147);组内不同时间点、组间不同手术方式对两组VAS评分、UCLA评分均存在显著影响(P 0. 05);末次随访时,两组临床疗效优良率比较差异无统计学意义(93%vs. 90%)(χ2=0. 220、P=0. 639);两组在随访过程中均无切口感染、神经损伤、肩袖再次断裂、关节挛缩等并发症发生。结论 全肩关节镜和关节镜下小切口治疗肩袖损伤患者疗效相似。关节镜下小切口手术时间短,全肩关节镜术后恢复时间短、术中出血量更少。     

关节镜肩袖修补术后快速康复与延迟康复的Meta分析

目的:比较关节镜肩袖修补术后快速康复与延迟康复的疗效与安全性。方法:计算机系统检索Pubmed、EMBASE、Cochrane library、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据库、维普数据库等,及手工查找关于比较关节镜肩袖修补术后快速康复与延迟康复临床结果的随机对照研究。按照文献纳入标准、排除标准选取文献,并提取相关数据,评价研究方法学质量,采用Review Manager5.3软件对提取的数据进行统计学分析。结果:共纳入文献7篇,均为随机对照研究,包括547名患者,其中快速康复组279名,延迟康复组268名。Meta分析结果显示:快速康复组术后6个月肩关节前屈活动角度[MD=4.90,95%CI(1.98,7.82),P=0.001]大于延迟康复组,两组在术后6个月肩关节外旋活动度、ASES评分、Constant评分、VAS评分及术后12个月肩关节前屈活动度、外旋活动度、ASES评分、Constant评分、VAS评分等方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在肩袖愈合方面,两康复组肩袖中小全层撕裂与中大全层撕裂修补术后肩袖愈合率及再撕裂率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:关节镜肩袖修补术后快速康复能促进早期肩关节前屈活动度恢复,但并不能明显促进肩关节功能恢复,而两组术后无论是中小撕裂还是中大撕裂,肩袖愈合率及再撕裂率没有显著差异。     

Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND: Recurrent defects after open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair are common. Double-row repair techniques may improve initial fixation and quality of rotator cuff repair. PURPOSE: To evaluate the load to failure, cyclic displacement, and anatomical footprint of 4 arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques. HYPOTHESIS: Double-row suture anchor repair would have superior structural properties and would create a larger footprint compared to single-row repair. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were randomly assigned to 4 arthroscopic repair techniques. The repair was performed as either a single-row technique or 1 of 3 double-row techniques: diamond, mattress double anchor, or modified mattress double anchor. Angle of loading, anchor type, bone mineral density, anchor distribution, angle of anchor insertion, arthroscopic technique, and suture type and size were all controlled. Footprint length and width were quantified before and after repair. Displacement with cyclic loading and load to failure were determined. RESULTS: There were no differences in load to failure and displacement with cyclic loading between the single-row repair and each double-row repair. All repair groups demonstrated load to failure greater than 250 N. A significantly greater supraspinatus footprint width was seen with double-row techniques compared to single-row repair. CONCLUSIONS: The single-row repair technique was similar to the double-row techniques in load to failure, cyclic displacement, and gap formation. The double-row anchor repairs consistently restored a larger footprint than did the single-row method. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The arthroscopic techniques studied have strong structural properties that approached the reported performance of open repair techniques. Double-row techniques provide a larger footprint width; although not addressed by this study, such a factor may improve the biological quality of repair.     

Revision of failed arthroscopic bankart repairs

BACKGROUND: The results following open revision surgery following a failed arthroscopic Bankart procedure are not well documented. PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of patients with a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair treated with a traditional, open Bankart repair. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Thirty patients (28 male and 2 female) who had a mean age of 24 years (range 15-36) at the time of operation were evaluated. The mean interval from the time of the operation to the final follow-up was 46 months (range 24-55). The rating systems of Rowe and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) were recorded preoperatively and at the time of the final evaluation. RESULTS: After open repair, mean modified Rowe scores improved from 25 preoperatively to 84.2 points. The results were excellent in 2 (6.7%), good in 24 (80%), and fair in 4 (13.3%); there were no poor results. The UCLA shoulder score improved from a mean of 17 points preoperatively to 29 points (P = .001 for all comparisons). Twenty-six patients (87%) did not have an anchor placement inferior to the 4-o'clock position for a right shoulder or the 8-o'clock position for the left shoulder after the index arthroscopic repair. There were no rotator interval closures performed at the index arthroscopic Bankart repair, and 10 patients (33%) required an interval closure at the open revision procedure. Twenty-five patients (83%) immobilized the operated arm in a sling for less than 2 weeks following the index arthroscopic repair. CONCLUSION: Patients with failed arthroscopic Bankart repairs can be successfully treated with a revision, open Bankart repair. Inadequate postoperative immobilization, large rotator intervals, and improper anchor placement are possible risk factors that may increase the incidence of failure of an arthroscopic Bankart repair.     

Outcome and structural integrity after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using 2 rows of fixation: minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND: Although arthroscopic repairs of the rotator cuff are becoming increasingly popular, security of fixation remains a concern. Two-row repairs have been described, but clinical outcome reports have primarily involved open techniques. HYPOTHESIS: An arthroscopic repair technique that uses 2 rows of fixation produces satisfactory outcome and structural integrity by ultrasonography. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Forty-eight patients (52 shoulders) with a full-thickness, but fully reducible, rotator cuff tear who met the inclusion criteria were treated with an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using 2 rows of suture anchors. The mean tear size was 2.47 cm (range, 1-4 cm). Patients were evaluated by subjective functional assessment (L'Insalata Shoulder Rating Questionnaire), clinical examination, including measured strength testing, and ultrasonography. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 30 months (minimum of 2 years), functional scores improved from a mean of 42 preoperatively to 93 postoperatively (P < .001). Active range of motion was increased in all measured planes (P < .001). Strength was also increased in elevation (P < .001), external rotation (P < .001), and internal rotation (P = .033). Nine of the 52 shoulders (17%) had evidence of retear or persistent defect on postoperative ultrasonography. There were no differences detected in functional scores between those with an intact repair and those with a defect, but those with an intact repair were stronger in elevation (P = .006) and external rotation (P = .001). CONCLUSION: An arthroscopic 2-row rotator cuff repair produces excellent functional outcome and repair integrity comparable with previously reported open repairs. Presence of a defect after repair did not appear to affect patient-reported function and return to preinjury activity but did affect measured strength.     

Tendon-to-bone pressure distributions at a repaired rotator cuff footprint using transosseous suture and suture anchor fixation techniques

BACKGROUND: Interface contact pressure between the tendon and bone has been shown to influence healing. This study evaluates the interface pressure of the rotator cuff tendon to the greater tuberosity for different rotator cuff repair techniques. HYPOTHESIS: The transosseous tunnel rotator cuff repair technique provides larger pressure distributions over a defined insertion footprint than do suture anchor techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Simulated rotator cuff tears over a 1 x 2-cm infraspinatus insertion footprint were created in 25 bovine shoulders. A transosseous tunnel simple suture technique (n = 8), suture anchor simple technique (n = 9), and suture anchor mattress technique (n = 8) were used for repair. Pressurized contact areas and mean pressures of the repaired tendon against the tuberosity were determined using pressure-sensitive film placed between the tendon and the tuberosity. RESULTS: The mean contact area between the tendon and tuberosity insertion footprint was significantly greater for the transosseous technique (67.7 +/- 5.8 mm(2)) compared with the suture anchor simple (34.1 +/- 9.4 mm(2)) and suture anchor mattress (26.0 +/- 5.3 mm(2)) techniques (P < .05). The mean interface pressure exerted over the footprint by the tendon was also greater for the transosseous technique (0.32 +/- 0.05 MPa) compared with the suture anchor simple (0.26 +/- 0.04 MPa) and suture anchor mattress (0.24 +/- 0.02 MPa) techniques (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The transosseous tunnel rotator cuff repair technique creates significantly more contact and greater overall pressure distribution over a defined footprint when compared with suture anchor techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Stronger and faster rotator cuff healing may be expected when beneficial pressure distributions exist between the repaired rotator cuff and its insertion footprint. Tendon-to-tuberosity pressure and contact characteristics should be considered in the development of improved open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques.     

Tendon-bone interface motion in transosseous suture and suture anchor rotator cuff repair techniques

BACKGROUND: Although many studies involving rotator cuff repair fixation have focused on ultimate fixation strength and ability to restore the tendon's native footprint, no studies have characterized the stability of the repair with regard to motion between the tendon and repair site footprint. HYPOTHESIS: Suture anchor fixation for rotator cuff repair has greater interface motion between tendon and bone than does transosseous suture fixation. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were tested in a custom device to position the shoulder in internal and external rotations with simulated supraspinatus muscle loading. Tendon motion relative to the insertional footprint on the greater tuberosity was determined optically using a digital camera rigidly connected to the humerus, with the humerus positioned at 60 degrees of internal rotation and 60 degrees of external rotation. Testing was performed for the intact tendon, a complete supraspinatus tear, a suture anchor repair, and a transosseous tunnel repair. RESULTS: Difference in tendon-bone interface motion when compared with the intact tendon was 7.14 +/- 3.72 mm for the torn rotator cuff condition, 2.35 +/- 1.26 mm for the suture anchor repair, and 0.02 +/- 1.18 mm for the transosseous suture repair. The transosseous suture repair demonstrated significantly less motion when compared with the torn rotator cuff and suture anchor repair conditions (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Transosseous suture repair compared with suture anchor repair demonstrated superior tendon fixation with reduced motion at the tendon-to-tuberosity interface. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Development of new fixation techniques for arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repairs should attempt to minimize interface motion of the tendon relative to the tuberosity.     

Arthroscopic treatment of chronic calcific tendinitis with complete removal and rotator cuff tendon repair

Relatively large calcific materials on radiographs of shoulders with persistent symptoms after extended periods of conservative treatment are candidates for operative treatment. But complete removal of calcific materials sometimes leaves a large defect in the rotator cuff tendon, and tendon repair might be essential if defects are large. We evaluated the clinical results of complete removal of calcific deposits with or without repair of the rotator cuff tendon in 35 consecutive patients. Eighteen patients underwent calcific material removal, which resulted in a complete tear in the rotator cuff tendon, and suture anchor repair. And the other 17 patients received either side-to-side repair or simple debridement. Clinical outcomes improved at a median 31 (range 24–45) months after surgery, and pain relief was achieved within 6 months of surgery in 30 of 35. However, ten patients developed a secondary stiff shoulder. Repair with or without suture anchor after complete removal of calcific material provides good clinical results and earlier pain relief when it was compared to previous literatures of minimal removal technique.     

Biomechanical evaluation of rotator cuff fixation methods

Initial fixation strength and failure mode for various rotator cuff reattachment techniques (variations of the McLaughlin technique) were evaluated. Repair methods included standard suture (control), reinforced suture [expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) patch and polydioxanone (PDS) tape augmentation] and stapling (nonarthroscopic and arthroscopic soft-tissue staples). The average strength of intact rotator cuff tissue (supraspinatus tendon) was also determined. The different rotator cuff repairs, including at least one control, were performed on fresh-frozen human cadaver shoulder pairs. Repairs were tested to failure in pure tension with the shoulder fixed in 60 degrees of abduction. Load and displacement data were normalized to controls, grouped according to failure modes, and statistically analyzed. The two basic failure modes observed were 1) bone failure, or suture tearing through the bone (indicating weak bone stock) and 2) tendon failure, or suture tearing of the rotator cuff. Gross comparisons between intact and repaired tendons indicated that the intact tendon was two to three times stronger than the repaired tendon. Based on the mode of failure and lack of increased strength after repair, the use of staples for cuff attachment is discouraged. PDS tape suture reinforcement did not increase fixation strength. In contrast, PTFE patch suture augmentation demonstrated statistically higher initial failure loads than did the control and was of specific benefit for shoulders with weak bone stock.     

Rotator cuff repair. A biomechanical comparison of three techniques

BACKGROUND: The most common complication of rotator cuff repair is structural failure at the repair site. A single-layer repair does not adequately reproduce the anatomic insertion and may not optimize fixation strength. HYPOTHESIS: A double-layer rotator cuff repair will have greater initial fixation strength than a single-layer repair. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen matched pairs of cadaveric shoulders were repaired by using dual-site fixation with both suture anchors and transosseous tunnels on one side (technique 1). Fixation was achieved by using suture anchors with horizontal mattress sutures and bone tunnels with modified Mason-Allen sutures. Half of the contralateral matched shoulders underwent fixation with suture anchors and simple sutures to simulate commonly used arthroscopic methods (technique 2) and, in the rest, fixation was achieved by using transosseous tunnels and modified Mason-Allen sutures (technique 3). Repaired specimens then underwent cyclic loading at physiologic rates and loads. The number of cycles to failure, which was defined as a 1-cm gap at the repair site, was then recorded. An arbitrary cut-off point of 5000 cycles was chosen. RESULTS: The mean number of cycles to failure with technique 1 (3694 +/- 1980 cycles) was significantly greater than that with either technique 2 (1414 +/- 1888 cycles) or technique 3 (528 +/- 683 cycles). Failure was predominantly through bone. CONCLUSIONS: The initial fixation strength of our double-layer repair exceeds that of isolated single-layer repairs with either suture anchors or transosseous tunnels.     

Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Restoring the anatomical footprint may improve the healing and mechanical strength of repaired tendons. A double row of suture anchors increases the tendon-bone contact area, reconstituting a more anatomical configuration of the rotator cuff footprint. HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in clinical and imaging outcome between single-row and double-row suture anchor technique repairs of rotator cuff tears. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: The authors recruited 60 patients. In 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a single-row suture anchor technique (group 1). In the other 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a double-row suture anchor technique (group 2). RESULTS: Eight patients (4 in the single-row anchor repair group and 4 in the double-row anchor repair group) did not return at the final follow-up. At the 2-year follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen with respect to the University of California, Los Angeles score and range of motion values. At 2-year follow-up, postoperative magnetic resonance arthrography in group 1 showed intact tendons in 14 patients, partial-thickness defects in 10 patients, and full-thickness defects in 2 patients. In group 2, magnetic resonance arthrography showed an intact rotator cuff in 18 patients, partial-thickness defects in 7 patients, and full-thickness defects in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: Single- and double-row techniques provide comparable clinical outcome at 2 years. A double-row technique produces a mechanically superior construct compared with the single-row method in restoring the anatomical footprint of the rotator cuff, but these mechanical advantages do not translate into superior clinical performance.     

Patterns of vascular and anatomical response after rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND: It has been assumed that a robust vascular response at the tendon to bone interface during rotator cuff repairs is an integral part to the healing process. There are few studies that have explored this in an in-vivo prospective fashion. PURPOSE: To prospectively characterize vascular and anatomical patterns in repaired rotator cuff tendons using Power Doppler sonography in a double-blinded fashion. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing rotator cuff repair were enrolled: 28 mini-open, 14 open, and 8 arthroscopic repairs; 20 patients were controls. Patients underwent Power Doppler sonography at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Power Doppler sonography analysis examined 6 areas of the rotator cuff repair: discretely marginated intrasubstance, partial-thickness defects, full-thickness defects, focal thinning of repair, presence of bursal or joint fluid, and location of anchors. A subjective scoring system assessed blood flow in each region. RESULTS: There was a predictable, significant decrease in vascular scores after rotator cuff repair over time. The mean vascular score was 11.6 at 6 weeks, 8.3 at 3 months, 7.0 at 6 months, and 2.4 for controls. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in vascular recruitment scores between each time period, with the most robust flow at the peritendinous region. The lowest vascular score was at the anchor site or cancellous trough. Forty-eight percent of the patients had a rotator cuff repair defect postoperatively. These findings did not correlate with functional assessment and outcome at 6 months. There was no significant difference in vascular scores between the defect and no-defect groups. Mean University of California, Los Angeles; L'Insalata; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores at 6 months were 28.6, 86.3, and 81.5, respectively. Thirty-three percent of asymptomatic controls had a rotator cuff tear that averaged 7.6 x 7.1 mm. CONCLUSION: The robust vascular response dropped with time, which is not seen in asymptomatic shoulders. Nearly half of the patients demonstrated persistent rotator cuff defects after rotator cuff repair that did not correlate with functional outcome and physical findings at 6 months.