TY - JOUR
T1 - Contact area, contact pressure, and pressure patterns of the tendon-bone interface after rotator cuff repair
AU - Tuoheti, Yilihamu
AU - Itoi, Eiji
AU - Yamamoto, Nobuyuki
AU - Seki, Nobutoshi
AU - Abe, Hidekazu
AU - Minagawa, Hiroshi
AU - Okada, Kyoji
AU - Shimada, Yoichi
PY - 2005/12
Y1 - 2005/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Contact area
KW - Contact pressure
KW - Rotator cuff repair
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=28344449190&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=28344449190&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0363546505278256
DO - 10.1177/0363546505278256
M3 - Article
C2 - 16157853
AN - SCOPUS:28344449190
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 33
SP - 1869
EP - 1874
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 12
ER -