Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair

2007 ◽  
Vol 2007 ◽  
pp. 30-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.J. Goitz
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Cuff Repair

Contact Area, Contact Pressure, and Pressure Patterns of the Tendon-Bone Interface after Rotator Cuff Repair

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1869-1874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilihamu Tuoheti ◽  
Eiji Itoi ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto ◽  
Nobutoshi Seki ◽  
Hidekazu Abe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Contact Pressure ◽  
Contact Area ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Bone Interface ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background The contact pressure and contact area at the tendon-bone interface after the most commonly used rotator cuff repair methods have not been investigated. Hypothesis There are no significant differences among the transosseous, the single-row suture anchor, and the double-row suture anchor techniques in terms of contact pressure, contact area, and pressure patterns at the tendon-bone interface. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods After creating a full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear in 10 cadaveric shoulder specimens, we inserted pressure-sensitive film between the tendon stump and the bone, and we repaired the tear by (1) transosseous, (2) single-row suture anchor, and (3) double-row suture anchor techniques. Results The contact area of the double-row technique was 42% greater than that of the transosseous technique (P <. 0001) and 60% greater than that of the single-row technique. The contact area of the transosseous technique was 31% greater than that of the single-row technique (P =. 0015). The average pressures of the single-row and double-row techniques were 18% (P =. 014) and 16% (P =. 03) greater, respectively, than that of the transosseous technique, but there was no significant difference between the single-row and double-row techniques (P =. 915). Conclusions The double-row technique produced the greatest contact area and the second-highest contact pressure, whereas the single-row technique created the highest contact pressure and the least contact area. The transosseous technique produced the second-greatest contact area and the least contact pressure. Clinical Relevance The double-row suture anchor technique and the transosseous technique may provide a better environment for tendon healing.

scholarly journals Biomechanical comparison between single-row with triple-loaded suture anchor and suture-bridge double-row rotator cuff repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
He-Bei He ◽  
Yong Hu ◽  
Chuan Li ◽  
Cheng-Guo Li ◽  
Min-Cong Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Dr Method ◽  
Ultimate Failure ◽  
Cuff Repair

Abstract Background Numerous biomechanical and clinical studies comparing different techniques for rotator cuff repair have been reported, yet universal consensus regarding the superior technique has not achieved. A medially-based single-row with triple-loaded suture anchor (also referred to as the Southern California Orthopedic Institute [SCOI] row) and a suture-bridge double-row (SB-DR) with Push-Locks have been shown to result in comparable improvement in treating rotator cuff tear, yet the biomechanical difference is unknown. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether a SCOI row repair had comparable initial biomechanical properties to a SB-DR repair. Methods Six matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders with full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears we created were included. Two different repairs were performed for each pair (SCOI row and SB-DR methods). Specimens were mounted on a material testing machine to undergo cyclic loading, which was cycled from 10 to 100 N at 1 Hz for 500 cycles. Construct gap formation was recorded at an interval of 50 cycles. Samples were then loaded to failure and modes of failure were recorded. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and pair-t test were used for statistical analyses. Results The construct gap formation did not differ between SCOI row and SB-DR repairs (P = 0.056). The last gap displacement was 1.93 ± 0.37 mm for SCOI row repair, and 1.49 ± 0.55 mm for SB-DR repair. The tensile load for 5 mm of elongation and ultimate failure were higher for SCOI row repair compared to SB-DR repair (P = 0.011 and 0.028, respectively). The ultimate failure load was 326.34 ± 11.52 N in the SCOI row group, and 299.82 ± 27.27 N in the SB-DR group. Rotator cuff repair with the SCOI row method failed primarily at the suture- tendon interface, whereas pullout of the lateral row anchors was the primary mechanism of failure for repair with the SB-DR method. Conclusion Rotator cuff repair with the SCOI row method has superior biomechanical properties when compared with the SB-DR method. Therefore, SCOI row repair using a medially-based single-row technique with triple-loaded suture anchor is recommended to improve the initial strength in treating full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Biomechanical Comparison of a Single-Row versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Kim ◽  
Neal S. ElAttrache ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Bong-Jae Jun ◽  
Sergai N. DeLaMora ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison ◽  
Cuff Repair
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document