Are Knotted or Knotless Techniques Better for Reconstruction of Full-Thickness Tears of the Superior Portion of the Subscapularis Tendon? A Study in Cadavers.


Journal

Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 03 2022
Historique:
received: 30 03 2021
accepted: 19 08 2021
pubmed: 9 9 2021
medline: 11 3 2022
entrez: 8 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Knotted and knotless single-anchor reconstruction techniques are frequently performed to reconstruct full-thickness tears of the upper portion of subscapularis tendon. However, it is unclear whether one technique is superior to the other. (1) When comparing knotless and knotted single-anchor reconstruction techniques in full-thickness tears of the upper subscapularis tendon, is there a difference in stiffness under cyclic load? (2) Are there differences in cyclic gapping between knotless and knotted reconstructions? (3) Are there differences in the maximal stiffness, yield load, and ultimate load to failure? (4) What are the modes of failure of knotless and knotted reconstruction techniques? Eight matched pairs of human cadaveric shoulders were dissected, and a full-thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon (Grade 3 according to the Fox and Romeo classification) was created. The cadavers all were male specimens, with a median (range) age of 69 years (61 to 75). Before biomechanical evaluation, the specimens were randomized into two equal reconstruction groups: knotless single anchor and knotted single anchor. All surgical procedures were performed by a single orthopaedic surgeon who subspecializes in sports orthopedics and shoulder surgery. With a customized set up that was integrated in a dynamic material testing machine, the humeri were consecutively loaded from 10 N to 60 N, from 10 N to 100 N, and from 10 N to 180 N for 50 cycles. Furthermore, the gapping behavior of the tear was analyzed using a video tracking system. Finally, the stiffness, gapping, maximal stiffness, yield loads, and maximum failure loads of both reconstruction groups were statistically analyzed. Failure was defined as retearing of the reconstructed gap threshold due to rupture of the tendon and/or failure of the knots or anchors. After biomechanical testing, bone quality was measured at the footprint of the subscapularis using microCT in all specimens. Bone quality was equal between both groups. To detect a minimum 0.15-mm difference in gap formation between the two repair techniques (with a 5% level of significance; α = 0.05), eight matched pairs (n = 16 in total) were calculated as necessary to achieve a power of at least 90%. The first study question can be answered as follows: for stiffness under cyclic load, there were no differences with the numbers available between the knotted and knotless groups at load stages of 10 N to 60 N (32.7 ± 3.5 N/mm versus 34.2 ± 5.6 N/mm, mean difference 1.5 N/mm [95% CI -6.43 to 3.33]; p = 0.55), 10 N to 100 N (45.0 ± 4.8 N/mm versus 45.2 ± 6.0 N/mm, mean difference 0.2 N/mm [95% CI -5.74 to 6.04]; p = 0.95), and 10 N to 180 N (58.2 ± 10.6 N/mm versus 55.2 ± 4.7 N/mm, mean difference 3 N/mm [95% CI -5.84 to 11.79]; p = 0.48). In relation to the second research question, the following results emerged: For cyclic gapping, there were no differences between the knotted and knotless groups at any load levels. The present study was able to show the following with regard to the third research question: Between knotted and knotless repairs, there were no differences in maximal load stiffness (45.3 ± 8.6 N/mm versus 43.5 ± 10.2 N/mm, mean difference 1.8 [95% CI -11.78 to 8.23]; p = 0.71), yield load (425.1 ± 251.4 N versus 379.0 ± 169.4 N, mean difference 46.1 [95% CI -276.02 to 183.72]; p = 0.67), and failure load (521.1 ± 266.2 N versus 475.8 ± 183.3 N, mean difference 45.3 [95% CI -290.42 to 199.79]; p = 0.69). Regarding the fourth question concerning the failure modes, in the knotted repairs, the anchor tore from the bone in 2 of 8, the suture tore from the tendon in 6 of 8, and no suture slipped from the eyelet; in the knotless repairs, the anchor tore from the bone in 2 of 8, the suture tore from the tendon in 3 of 8, and the threads slipped from the eyelet in 3 of 8. With the numbers available, we found no differences between single-anchor knotless and knotted reconstruction techniques used to repair full-thickness tears of the upper portion of subscapularis tendon. The reconstruction techniques we analyzed showed no differences in terms of their primary stability and biomechanical properties at the time of initial repair and with the numbers available. In view of these experimental results, it would be useful to conduct a clinical study in the future to verify the translationality of the experimental data of the present study.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Knotted and knotless single-anchor reconstruction techniques are frequently performed to reconstruct full-thickness tears of the upper portion of subscapularis tendon. However, it is unclear whether one technique is superior to the other.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
(1) When comparing knotless and knotted single-anchor reconstruction techniques in full-thickness tears of the upper subscapularis tendon, is there a difference in stiffness under cyclic load? (2) Are there differences in cyclic gapping between knotless and knotted reconstructions? (3) Are there differences in the maximal stiffness, yield load, and ultimate load to failure? (4) What are the modes of failure of knotless and knotted reconstruction techniques?
METHODS
Eight matched pairs of human cadaveric shoulders were dissected, and a full-thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon (Grade 3 according to the Fox and Romeo classification) was created. The cadavers all were male specimens, with a median (range) age of 69 years (61 to 75). Before biomechanical evaluation, the specimens were randomized into two equal reconstruction groups: knotless single anchor and knotted single anchor. All surgical procedures were performed by a single orthopaedic surgeon who subspecializes in sports orthopedics and shoulder surgery. With a customized set up that was integrated in a dynamic material testing machine, the humeri were consecutively loaded from 10 N to 60 N, from 10 N to 100 N, and from 10 N to 180 N for 50 cycles. Furthermore, the gapping behavior of the tear was analyzed using a video tracking system. Finally, the stiffness, gapping, maximal stiffness, yield loads, and maximum failure loads of both reconstruction groups were statistically analyzed. Failure was defined as retearing of the reconstructed gap threshold due to rupture of the tendon and/or failure of the knots or anchors. After biomechanical testing, bone quality was measured at the footprint of the subscapularis using microCT in all specimens. Bone quality was equal between both groups. To detect a minimum 0.15-mm difference in gap formation between the two repair techniques (with a 5% level of significance; α = 0.05), eight matched pairs (n = 16 in total) were calculated as necessary to achieve a power of at least 90%.
RESULTS
The first study question can be answered as follows: for stiffness under cyclic load, there were no differences with the numbers available between the knotted and knotless groups at load stages of 10 N to 60 N (32.7 ± 3.5 N/mm versus 34.2 ± 5.6 N/mm, mean difference 1.5 N/mm [95% CI -6.43 to 3.33]; p = 0.55), 10 N to 100 N (45.0 ± 4.8 N/mm versus 45.2 ± 6.0 N/mm, mean difference 0.2 N/mm [95% CI -5.74 to 6.04]; p = 0.95), and 10 N to 180 N (58.2 ± 10.6 N/mm versus 55.2 ± 4.7 N/mm, mean difference 3 N/mm [95% CI -5.84 to 11.79]; p = 0.48). In relation to the second research question, the following results emerged: For cyclic gapping, there were no differences between the knotted and knotless groups at any load levels. The present study was able to show the following with regard to the third research question: Between knotted and knotless repairs, there were no differences in maximal load stiffness (45.3 ± 8.6 N/mm versus 43.5 ± 10.2 N/mm, mean difference 1.8 [95% CI -11.78 to 8.23]; p = 0.71), yield load (425.1 ± 251.4 N versus 379.0 ± 169.4 N, mean difference 46.1 [95% CI -276.02 to 183.72]; p = 0.67), and failure load (521.1 ± 266.2 N versus 475.8 ± 183.3 N, mean difference 45.3 [95% CI -290.42 to 199.79]; p = 0.69). Regarding the fourth question concerning the failure modes, in the knotted repairs, the anchor tore from the bone in 2 of 8, the suture tore from the tendon in 6 of 8, and no suture slipped from the eyelet; in the knotless repairs, the anchor tore from the bone in 2 of 8, the suture tore from the tendon in 3 of 8, and the threads slipped from the eyelet in 3 of 8.
CONCLUSION
With the numbers available, we found no differences between single-anchor knotless and knotted reconstruction techniques used to repair full-thickness tears of the upper portion of subscapularis tendon.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The reconstruction techniques we analyzed showed no differences in terms of their primary stability and biomechanical properties at the time of initial repair and with the numbers available. In view of these experimental results, it would be useful to conduct a clinical study in the future to verify the translationality of the experimental data of the present study.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34494983
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001970
pii: 00003086-202203000-00015
pmc: PMC8846353
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

523-535

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Références

Abboud JA. Current concepts in rotator cuff disease and treatment: editorial comment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1467-1468.
Adams CR, Schoolfield JD, Burkhart SS. The results of arthroscopic subscapularis tendon repairs. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:1381-1389.
Adams CR, Schoolfield JD, Burkhart SS. Accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting a subscapularis tendon tear based on arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2010;26:1427-1433.
Ahmad CS, Wing D, Gardner TR, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of subscapularis repair used during shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:S59-64.
Arai R, Sugaya H, Mochizuki T, et al. Subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic and clinical investigation. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:997-1004.
Balke M, Liem D, Greshake O, et al. Differences in acromial morphology of shoulders in patients with degenerative and traumatic supraspinatus tendon tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:2200-2205.
Barber FA. Biodegradable shoulder anchors have unique modes of failure. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:316-320.
Barber FA, Cawley P, Prudich JF. Suture anchor failure strength--an in vivo study. Arthroscopy. 1993;9:647-652.
Barth J, Audebert S, Toussaint B, et al. Diagnosis of subscapularis tendon tears: are available diagnostic tests pertinent for a positive diagnosis? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:S178-185.
Bartl C, Scheibel M, Magosch P, et al. Open repair of isolated traumatic subscapularis tendon tears. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:490-496.
Bartolozzi A, Andreychik D, Ahmad S. Determinants of outcome in the treatment of rotator cuff disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;308:90-97.
Bechtol CO. Biomechanics of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;146:37-41.
Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic treatment of massive rotator cuff tears. Clinical results and biomechanical rationale. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;267:45-56.
Burkhart SS, Brady PC. Arthroscopic subscapularis repair: surgical tips and pearls A to Z. Arthroscopy. 2006;22:1014-1027.
Burkhead WZ, Skedros JG, O’Rourke PJ, et al. A novel double-row rotator cuff repair exceeds strengths of conventional repairs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:106-113.
Burman MS. Arthroscopy or the direct visualization of joints: an experimental cadaver study. 1931. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;390:5-9.
Butler DL, Grood ES, Noyes FR, et al. Biomechanics of ligaments and tendons. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1978;6:125-181.
Chung CB, Lektrakul N, Gigena L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the upper extremity: advances in technique and application. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001:162-174.
Denard PJ, Burkhart SS. A new method for knotless fixation of an upper subscapularis tear. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:861-866.
Denard PJ, Lädermann A, Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic management of subscapularis tears. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2011;19:333-341.
Dyrna F, Beitzel K, Pauzenberger L, et al. A superolaterally placed anchor for subscapularis “leading-edge” refixation: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy. 2019;35:1306-1313.e1.
Eichinger JK. Editorial commentary: the subscapularis is king, ignore it at your peril. Arthroscopy. 2018;34:1785.
Ellman H. Diagnosis and treatment of incomplete rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;254:64-74.
Farshad-Amacker NA, Buck FM, Farshad M, et al. Partial supraspinatus tears are associated with tendon lengthening. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:408-414.
Fox J, Romeo AA, Noerdlinger MA. Operative arthroscopic subscapularis repair. Tech Orth. 2002:209-217.
Fukuda H, Hamada K, Nakajima T, et al. Pathology and pathogenesis of the intratendinous tearing of the rotator cuff viewed from en bloc histologic sections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;304:60-67.
Gombera MM, Gomberawalla MM, Sekiya JK. Rotator cuff tear and glenohumeral instability: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2448-2456.
Gschwend N, Ivosević-Radovanović D, Patte D. Rotator cuff tear--relationship between clinical and anatomopathological findings. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1988;107:7-15.
Haneveld H, Hug K, Diederichs G, et al. Arthroscopic double-row repair of the rotator cuff: a comparison of bio-absorbable and non-resorbable anchors regarding osseous reaction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:1647-1654.
Hug K, Gerhardt C, Haneveld H, et al. Arthroscopic knotless-anchor rotator cuff repair: a clinical and radiological evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:2628-2634.
Kirchhoff C, Braunstein V, Milz S, et al. Assessment of bone quality within the tuberosities of the osteoporotic humeral head: relevance for anchor positioning in rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:564-569.
Kirchhoff C, Braunstein V, Milz S, et al. Age and gender as determinants of the bone quality of the greater tuberosity: a HR-pQCT cadaver study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:221.
Knesek M, Brunfeldt A, Korenczuk C, et al. Patterns of strain and the determination of the safe arc of motion after subscapularis repair—a biomechanical study. J Orthop Res. 2016;34:518-524.
Lee TQ, McMahon PJ. Shoulder biomechanics and muscle plasticity: implications in spinal cord injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;403(suppl):S26-36.
Leroux TS, Bhandari M. Cochrane in CORR®: Surgery for rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478:947-953.
Lorbach O, Trennheuser C, Kieb M, et al. Reconstruction of 25 and 50 % subscapularis tears: a single anchor with a double-mattress suture is sufficient for the reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:3855-3862.
McMahon PJ. Surgery and science of the rotator cuff: editorial comment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2425-2426.
McMahon PJ, Prasad A, Francis KA. What is the prevalence of senior-athlete rotator cuff injuries and are they associated with pain and dysfunction? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2427-2432.
Narasimhan R, Shamse K, Nash C, et al. Prevalence of subscapularis tears and accuracy of shoulder ultrasound in pre-operative diagnosis. Int Orthop. 2016;40:975-979.
Oh LS, Wolf BR, Hall MP, et al. Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:52-63.
Park MC, Idjadi JA, Elattrache NS. The effect of dynamic external rotation comparing 2 footprint-restoring rotator cuff repair techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:893-900.
Plancher KD. CORR Insights®: Anchorless arthroscopic transosseous and anchored arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair show no differences in structural integrity or patient-reported outcomes in a matched cohort. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478:1304-1306.
Smith JG. The classic: pathological appearances of seven cases of injury of the shoulder-joint: with remarks. 1834. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1471-1475.
Spencer EE. Partial-thickness articular surface rotator cuff tears: an all-inside repair technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1514-1520.
Thomazeau H, Boukobza E, Morcet N, et al. Prediction of rotator cuff repair results by magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997:275-283.
Van Thiel GS, Wang VM, Wang F-C, et al. Biomechanical similarities among subscapularis repairs after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:657-663.
Waldorff EI, Lindner J, Kijek TG, et al. Bone density of the greater tuberosity is decreased in rotator cuff disease with and without full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:904-908.
Wellmann M, Wiebringhaus P, Lodde I, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a single-row versus double-row repair for complete subscapularis tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17:1477-1484.
Zywiel MG, Mahomed A, Gandhi R, et al. Measuring expectations in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3446-3456.

Auteurs

Mirco Sgroi (M)

Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, RKU, Ulm, Germany.

Thomas Kappe (T)

Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, RKU, Ulm, Germany.

Marius Ludwig (M)

Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, RKU, Ulm, Germany.

Michael Fuchs (M)

Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, RKU, Ulm, Germany.

Daniel Dornacher (D)

Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, RKU, Ulm, Germany.

Heiko Reichel (H)

Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, RKU, Ulm, Germany.

Anita Ignatius (A)

Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Centre for Trauma Research Ulm, Ulm University Medical Centre, Ulm, Germany.

Lutz Dürselen (L)

Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Centre for Trauma Research Ulm, Ulm University Medical Centre, Ulm, Germany.

Anne Seywald (A)

Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Centre for Trauma Research Ulm, Ulm University Medical Centre, Ulm, Germany.

Andreas Martin Seitz (AM)

Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Centre for Trauma Research Ulm, Ulm University Medical Centre, Ulm, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH