...
首页> 外文期刊>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine >Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors
【24h】

Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors

机译:传统Bankart骨隧道修复与使用缝合锚钉进行Bankart修复的解剖和生物力学比较

获取原文

摘要

Background: Traditional Bankart repair using bone tunnels has a reported failure rate between 0% and 5% in long-term studies. Arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors has become more popular; however, reported failure rates have been cited between 4% and 18%. There have been no satisfactory explanations for the differences in these outcomes. Hypothesis: Bone tunnels will provide increased coverage of the native labral footprint and demonstrate greater load to failure and stiffness and decreased cyclic displacement in biomechanical testing. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty-two fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used. For footprint analysis, the labral footprint area was marked and measured using a Microscribe technique in 6 specimens. A 3-suture anchor repair was performed, and the area of the uncovered footprint was measured. This was repeated with traditional bone tunnel repair. For the biomechanical analysis, 8 paired specimens were randomly assigned to bone tunnel or suture anchor repair with the contralateral specimen assigned to the other technique. Each specimen underwent cyclic loading (5-25 N, 1 Hz, 100 cycles) and load to failure (15 mm/min). Displacement was measured using a digitized video recording system. Results: Bankart repair with bone tunnels provided significantly more coverage of the native labral footprint than repair with suture anchors (100% vs 27%, P < .001). Repair with bone tunnels (21.9 ± 8.7 N/mm) showed significantly greater stiffness than suture anchor repair (17.1 ± 3.5 N/mm, P = .032). Mean load to failure and gap formation after cyclic loading were not statistically different between bone tunnel (259 ± 76.8 N, 0.209 ± 0.064 mm) and suture anchor repairs (221.5 ± 59.0 N [ P = .071], 0.161 ± 0.51 mm [ P = .100]). Conclusion: Bankart repair with bone tunnels completely covered the footprint anatomy while suture anchor repair covered less than 30% of the native footprint. Repair using bone tunnels resulted in significantly greater stiffness than repair with suture anchors. Load to failure and gap formation were not significantly different.
机译:背景:在长期研究中,传统的用骨隧道进行Bankart修复的失败率在0%至5%之间。使用缝线锚钉的关节镜Bankart修复已变得越来越流行。但是,据报道失败率在4%至18%之间。对于这些结果的差异,还没有令人满意的解释。假设:骨隧道将增加对天然阴唇足迹的覆盖,并显示出更大的破坏力和刚度负荷,并在生物力学测试中减少循环位移。研究设计:受控实验室研究。方法:使用22只新鲜冷冻的尸体肩膀。为了进行脚印分析,使用Microscribe技术在6个样本中标记并测量了脚底的脚印区域。进行了3线锚固修复,并测量了未覆盖脚印的面积。传统的骨隧道修复术重复了这一步骤。为了进行生物力学分析,将8对配对的标本随机分配到骨隧道或缝合锚钉修复,而对侧标本分配给另一种技术。每个样品经受循环载荷(5-25 N,1 Hz,100个循环)和破坏载荷(15 mm / min)。使用数字化视频记录系统测量位移。结果:与缝线锚钉修复相比,用骨隧道进行Bankart修复可显着增加对天然阴唇足迹的覆盖率(100%对27%,P <.001)。骨隧道修复(21.9±8.7 N / mm)的刚度明显高于缝合锚钉修复(17.1±3.5 N / mm,P = .032)。骨隧道(259±76.8 N,0.209±0.064 mm)和缝线锚固修复(221.5±59.0 N [P = .071],0.161±0.51 mm [P = .100])。结论:用骨隧道进行的Bankart修复完全覆盖了脚印解剖结构,而缝合线锚固修复仅覆盖了不到30%的天然脚印。与使用缝线锚钉进行修复相比,使用骨隧道进行修复可显着提高刚度。破坏载荷和间隙形成没有显着差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号