medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2020, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2020; 34 (2)

Biomechanical comparison of conventional double-row repair versus double row repair with the parachute configuration

Cruz-López F, Jimenez GA, Alan BF, Cobaleda-Aristizabal AF

Language: English
References: 9
Page: 87-90
PDF size: 185.90 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The rotator cuff tears are a very frequent condition. The rotator cuff repair is a procedure often perform by the orthopedic surgeon. There are multiple techniques and suture configurations for this type of repairs. The double row configuration is one of the most used and consider very effective for mid-size and large size rotator cuff tears. The parachute configuration for this repair is a novel technique that may be useful for mid-size and large size tears, for this repair two medial double row anchors are used and one knotless lateral anchor. Our porpoise was to compare biomechanical performance and footprint coverage of a conventional suture-bridge double-row rotator cuff repair configuration versus a double-row-parachute. Methods: This paper shows the biomechanical behavior on a cadaver model of the parachute configuration, and also compares this conformation with a double row in a suture-bridge fashion. Our hipothesis was that the Parachute configuration’s biomechanical performance is equivalent to the suture-bridging double-row technique. Results: The parachute configuration advantages show the advantage of using less anchors, which will decrease the surgical time and also the risks of using multiple hardware in the humeral head.


REFERENCES

  1. Lorbach O, Kieb M, Raber F, Busch LC, Kohn D, Pape D. Comparable biomechanical results for a modified single-row rotator cuff reconstruction using triple-loaded suture anchors versus a suture-bridging double-row repair. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(2): 178-87.

  2. Barber FA, Drew OR. A biomechanical comparison of tendon-bone interface motion and cyclic loading between single-row, triple-loaded cuff repairs and double-row, suture-tape cuff repairs using biocomposite anchors. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(9): 1197-205.

  3. Kaplan K, ElAttrache NS, Vazquez O, Chen YJ, Lee T. Knotless rotator cuff repair in an external rotation model: the importance of medial-row horizontal mattress sutures. Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 471-8.

  4. Jost PW, Khair MM, Chen DX, Wright TM, Kelly AM, Rodeo SA. Suture number determines strength of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(14): e100.

  5. Barber FA, Bava ED, Spenciner DB, Piccirillo J. Cyclic biomechanical testing of biocomposite lateral row knotless anchors in a human cadaveric model. Arthroscopy. 2013; 29(6): 1012-8.

  6. Meisel AF, Henninger HB, Barber FA, Getelman MH. Biomechanical comparison of standard and linked single-row rotator cuff repairs in a human cadaver model. Arthroscopy. 2017; 33(5): 938-44.

  7. Deveci A. What is wrong in comparison of single- and double-row repairs in rotator cuff tears? Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019; 29(7): 1589-90.

  8. Natera L, Consigliere P, Witney-Lagen C, Brugera J, Sforza G, Atoun E, et al. The “Parachute” technique: a simple and effective single-row procedure to achieve an increased contact area between the cuff-tendon and its footprint. Arthrosc Tech. 2017; 6(5): e1903-9.

  9. Genuario JW, Donegan RP, Hamman D, Bell JE, Boublik M, Schlegel T, Tosteson AN. The cost-effectiveness of single-row compared with double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(15): 1369-77.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com