...
首页> 外文期刊>JSES Open Access >A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel
【24h】

A biomechanical comparison of subscapularis repair techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty: lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis peel

机译:肩cap下修复技术在全肩关节置换术中的生物力学比较:结节性较小的截骨术与肩sub下皮术的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The subscapularis peel (SP) and the lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) are 2 common exposure techniques for total shoulder arthroplasty. Although some biomechanical studies have suggested a higher resistance to failure with the LTO, clinical studies have demonstrated no difference in repair failure or tendon healing. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in biomechanically tested repair strength between our SP technique and the previously tested LTO technique. Methods Eleven cadaver shoulders were separated into 2 groups: 6 SPs and 5 LTOs. After initial loading for 3000 cycles, the specimens were incrementally loaded to 450?±?50 N or catastrophic failure. Repair gapping was measured after cyclical loading, and fatigue life was analyzed after incremental loading. Results There was no significant difference in mean repair gapping between the SP (2.40?±?0.36?mm; mean?±?standard deviation) and the LTO groups (3.10?±?2.93?mm; P =?.57). There was also no difference in the mean number of cycles to failure (6894?±?956 vs. 6018?±?1179; P =?.14) and mean load to failure (400?±?79 N vs. 340?±?91 N; P =?.21) between the SP and LTO techniques. However, there was more variability in bead gapping in the LTO group ( P Conclusion No significant differences were found in repair gapping, fatigue failure, and load to failure in comparing the SP and LTO repairs. However, the SP repair demonstrated significantly less variability in repair gapping. These findings suggest that initial fixation biomechanical properties between the 2 constructs are similar in vitro.
机译:背景肩s下剥离术(SP)和小结节截骨术(LTO)是全肩关节置换术的两种常见暴露技术。尽管一些生物力学研究表明LTO对失败具有更高的抵抗力,但临床研究表明修复失败或肌腱愈合没有差异。我们假设,在我们的SP技术和先前测试的LTO技术之间,经过生物力学测试的修复强度没有差异。方法将11具尸体肩膀分为2组:6个SP和5个LTO。初始加载3000个循环后,将样品逐渐加载至450?±?50 N或灾难性破坏。周期性加载后测量修补间隙,增量加载后分析疲劳寿命。结果SP(2.40±±0.36mm);平均±±标准差)与LTO组(3.10±±2.93mm; P = 0.57)之间的平均修复间隙无显着差异。平均故障失效次数(6894±±956 vs. 6018±±1179; P =±0.14)和平均故障负荷(400±±79 N vs. 340±±)也没有差异。 SP技术和LTO技术之间的差为?91 N; P =?.21)。然而,LTO组的胎珠间隙差异更大(P结论与SP和LTO的修复相比,修补间隙,疲劳失效和失效载荷没有显着差异。这些发现表明,两种构建体之间的初始固定生物力学特性在体外是相似的。

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