Proximal Hamstring Repair: A Biomechanical Analysis of Variable Suture Anchor Constructs

被引:6
|
作者
Gerhardt, Michael B. [1 ,2 ]
Assenmacher, Benjamin S. [1 ,2 ]
Chahla, Jorge [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Arthrex Biomech Lab, Naples, FL USA
[2] Cedars Sinai Kerlan Jobe Inst, 2020 Santa Monica Blvd,Suite 400, Santa Monica, CA 90404 USA
来源
关键词
hamstring; tendon repair; biomechanics; anchor; hamstring injury; ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR; MANAGEMENT; INJURIES;
D O I
10.1177/2325967118824149
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Despite an abundance of literature regarding construct strength for a myriad of anchors and anchor configurations in the shoulder, there remains a paucity of biomechanical studies detailing the efficacy of these implants for proximal hamstring repair. Purpose: To biomechanically evaluate the ultimate failure load and failure mechanism of knotless and knotted anchor configurations for hamstring repair. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 17 cadaveric specimens divided into 3 groups composed of intact hamstring tendons as well as 2 different anchor configurations (all-knotted and all-knotless) underwent first cyclic loading and subsequent maximal loading to failure. This protocol entailed a 10-N preload, followed by 100 cycles incrementally applied from 20 to 200 N at a frequency of 0.5 Hz, and ultimately followed by a load to failure with a loading rate of 33 mm/s. The ultimate failure load and mechanism of failure were recorded for each specimen, as was the maximal displacement of each bone-tendon interface subsequent to maximal loading. Analysis of variance was employed to calculate differences in the maximal load to failure as well as the maximal displacement between the 3 study groups. Holm-Sidak post hoc analysis was applied when necessary. Results: The all-knotless suture anchor construct failed at the highest maximal load of the 3 groups (767.18 +/- 93.50 N), including that for the intact tendon group (750.58 +/- 172.22 N). There was no statistically significant difference between the all-knotless and intact tendon groups; however, there was a statistically significant difference in load to failure when the all-knotless construct was compared with the all-knotted technique (549.56 +/- 20.74 N) (P = .024). The most common mode of failure in both repair groups was at the suture-tendon interface, whereas the intact tendon group most frequently failed via avulsion of the tendon from its insertion site. Conclusion: Under biomechanical laboratory testing conditions, proximal hamstring repair using all-knotless suture anchors outperformed the all-knotted suture anchor configuration with regard to elongation during cyclic loading and maximal load to failure. Failure in the all-knotted repair group was at the suture-tendon interface in most cases, whereas the all-knotless construct failed most frequently at the musculotendinous jun
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Biomechanical comparison of 3 suture anchor configurations for repair of type II SLAP lesions
    Domb, Benjamin G.
    Ehteshami, John R.
    Shindle, Michael K.
    Gulotta, Lawrence
    Zoghi-Moghadam, Mohamad
    MacGillivray, John D.
    Altchek, David W.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2007, 23 (02): : 135 - 140
  • [32] Biomechanical Evaluation of Suture Anchor Versus Transosseous Tunnel Quadriceps Tendon Repair Techniques
    Sherman, Seth L.
    Copeland, Marilyn E.
    Milles, Jeffrey L.
    Flood, David A.
    Pfeiffer, Ferris M.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2016, 32 (06): : 1117 - 1124
  • [33] Biomechanical Evaluation of Suture Anchor versus Transosseous Tunnel Patellar Tendon Repair Techniques
    Sherman, Seth L.
    Black, Brandee
    Mooberry, Matthew A.
    Freeman, Katie L.
    Gulbrandsen, Trevor R.
    Milles, Jeffrey L.
    Evans, Laura
    Flood, David
    Pfeiffer, Ferris
    JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY, 2019, 32 (08) : 825 - 831
  • [34] A biomechanical comparison of EndoButton versus suture anchor repair of distal biceps tendon injuries
    Spang, Jeffrey T.
    Weinhold, Paul S.
    Karas, Spero G.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2006, 15 (04) : 509 - 514
  • [35] Structural Properties of the Intact Proximal Hamstring Origin and Evaluation of Varying Avulsion Repair Techniques An In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis
    Hamming, Mark G.
    Philippon, Marc J.
    Rasmussen, Matthew T.
    Ferro, Fernando P.
    Turnbull, Travis Lee
    Trindade, Christiano A. C.
    LaPrade, Robert F.
    Wijdicks, Coen A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2015, 43 (03): : 721 - 728
  • [36] Biomechanical Analysis of Anteroinferior Bankart Repair Anchor Types
    Yanke, Adam B.
    Allahabadi, Sachin
    Wang, Zachary
    Credille, Kevin T.
    Shewman, Elizabeth
    Artur, Joao
    Elias, Tristan J.
    Hevesi, Mario
    Garrigues, Grant E.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (10): : 2642 - 2649
  • [37] Primary Proximal ACL Repair: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Arthroscopic Suture Configurations
    Rosslenbroich, Steffen B.
    Achtnich, Andrea
    Brodkorb, Cathrin
    Koesters, Clemens
    Kreis, Carolin
    Metzlaff, Sebastian
    Schliemann, Benedikt
    Petersen, Wolf
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (06)
  • [38] Biomechanical Analysis of Suture Anchor vs Tenodesis Screw for FHL Transfer
    Drakos, Mark C.
    Gott, Michael
    Karnovsky, Sydney C.
    Murphy, Conor I.
    DeSandis, Bridget A.
    Chinitz, Noah
    Grande, Daniel
    Chahine, Nadeen
    FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 38 (07) : 797 - 801
  • [39] Suture Anchor Repair of a Combined Tear of the Proximal Iliotibial Band and Tensor Fascia Lata
    Vaughan, Wilson
    Anderson, Christian N.
    ARTHROSCOPY TECHNIQUES, 2022, 11 (02): : E103 - E107
  • [40] Kinematic Analysis of Combined Suture-Button and Suture Anchor Augment Constructs for Ankle Syndesmosis Injuries
    Wood, Addison R.
    Arshad, Seyed A.
    Kim, Hannah
    Stewart, Donald
    FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 41 (04) : 463 - 472