Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tuoheti et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: